The status of industrial
vegetable oils from
genetically modified plants
This report was commissioned as a background document for an expert meeting
organised by the European Chemicals Agency on the subject of vegetable oils
derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The opinions expressed in this
report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or the official
position of the European Chemicals Agency.
© European Chemicals Agency 2012
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Contents
Terms and Abbreviations
1. Scope of the report
2. Introduction to vegetable oils, their extraction and role of GM technology
3. Addressing the five key Topics
4. Implications of 1st generation GM crops
5. Implications of 2nd generation GM crops
6. Concluding remarks
Appendix 1. Methods to detect material of GM origin in plants
Appendix 2. Technical challenges to producing GM industrial oil crops
Appendix 3. Global vegetable oil production and use
Appendix 4. Biofuels from vegetable oils
Appendix 5. Crop-derived, lipid-based biopolymers and waxes
Appendix 6. Socioeconomic dimensions of GM industrial oil crops
References
Page
2
4
5
10
15
17
20
22
25
28
31
32
34
Author
Denis J Murphy, Professor of Biotechnology, Head of Biological Research, University
of Glamorgan, CF37 4AT, United Kingdom, Email: dmurphy2@glam.ac.uk
The moral right of the author has been asserted.
1
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Terms and Abbreviations
1st generation GM crops: the vast majority of commercial GM crops grown from the 1990s
have modified input traits, such as herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance, but have
unaltered product compositions compared to non-GM counterparts
2nd generation GM crops: newer GM crop varieties are gradually being introduced with
modified output traits resulting in different product compositions compared to non-GM
counterparts
Amflora™: GM potato variety developed by BASF as a source of high-amylopectin starch for
technical applications in the paper, textile and adhesives industries and approved for
cultivation in the EU in 2010.
Biofuels: renewable fuels derived from recently living organisms used as alternatives to nonrenewable fossil-derived fuels. Existing biofuels include bioethanol from starch/fibre crops
such as cereals, and biodiesel from oil crops.
Biodiesel: type of plant-derived biofuel that is produced by transmethylation of refined
vegetable oil to form methyl esters that can be used directly or blended with other fuels in
vehicle engines. See also SVO.
Breeding: the deliberate manipulation of biological organisms to produce new varieties that are
useful to humans.
Cold pressing: method to extract vegetable oils by mechanical pressure used to prepare ‗virgin‘
oils for edible use. Not normally used to extract industrial oils.
Desaturase: enzyme inserting a double or triple carbon–carbon bond into a lipid acyl chain.
ELISA: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Highly sensitive method for detection of specific
proteins in complex mixtures and an approved technique for detection of GM-derived
proteins in crop products.
Enogen™: a GM maize variety released in 2011 by Syngenta Seeds Inc with a modified starch
content that enabled it use as an improved source of bioethanol.
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Fat: lipidic substance normally solid at room temperature that is often composed principally of
TAGs. Most naturally occurring fats are derived from animals but some vegetable ‗oils‘ can
be classified as solid fats, e.g. cocoa butter.
Functionality: as applied to fatty acids, the way in which a saturated hydrocarbon chain is
modified after de novo synthesis to create functional groups such as double or triple bonds
and epoxy or hydroxyl residues.
Genomics: description and analysis of genomes.
GM: genetic modification or genetic manipulation – the process by which DNA (or occasionally
RNA) is transferred into a cell or organism in order to modify its appearance, behaviour, or
properties. The transferred DNA may be copied from the same or a different organism.
Alternatively, the transferred DNA may be synthetic and hence of non-biological origin. An
organism containing introduced DNA is called transgenic or, more popularly, a GMO.
GMO: genetically modified organism – popular term often used to describe a transgenic
organism. Scientifically speaking, however, all organisms deliberately bred by humans have
been genetically manipulated/modified whether or not they are transgenic.
Input trait: a genetic character that affects how a crop is grown without changing the nature of
the harvested product. For example, herbicide tolerance and insect resistance are input traits
that assist crop management, but they do not normally alter seed or fruit quality or other socalled output traits that are related to the product(s) obtained from the crop.
Lauric acid: C12 saturated fatty acid, mostly obtained from palm oil and widely used for
industrial applications including detergents and cosmetics.
Lecithin: also called gum, a phospholipid-rich fraction obtained during the refining of vegetable
oils that has many uses as an emulsifier in a wide range of processed foods.
Lipid: substance soluble in organic solvents, e.g. phospho- and glycolipids, sterols, waxes and
triacylglycerols. In plants, lipids function as the matrix of all biological membranes, as
2
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
storage reserves, and as hormone-like mediators. Many plant lipids are also major
feedstocks for a huge range of industrial chemicals.
Metabolomics: description and analysis of the metabolite composition of a particular cell, tissue
or organism.
Mineral oil: also known as petroleum – a complex mixture of hydrocarbons and other minerals
obtained from subterranean or offshore deposits. Such oils originate from fossilised plant
remains from over 300 million years ago and are therefore non-renewable. In contrast to
biofuels, combustion of mineral oil-derived fuels contributes to net global CO2 emissions.
MSCAs: Member State Competent Authorities.
OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Oil: see mineral oil or Vegetable oil.
Oleic acid: C18 monounsaturated fatty acid found in most crop oils that has many uses in the
food and industrial sectors.
Oleochemicals: group of chemical feedstocks and intermediates derived from renewable,
carbon-neutral fats and oils extracted from plants or animals.
Output trait: a genetic character that alters the quality of the crop product itself, e.g. by altering
its starch, protein, vitamin, or oil composition.
PCR: polymerase chain reaction – a highly sensitive method for detection of DNA sequences in
tissues that can unequivocally determine the presence of GM material in suitable biological.
Petrochemicals: group of chemicals derived from non-renewable, fossil-based hydrocarbon
feedstocks such as mineral oils and coal.
Petroleum: see Mineral oil.
Plant: oxygenic photosynthetic autotroph, including algae, cyanobacteria, and land plants.
Proteomics: description and analysis of the proteins in a particular cell, tissue or organism.
REACH: REACH is the European Community Regulation on chemicals and their safe use (EC
1907/2006). It deals with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of
Chemical substances. The law entered into force on 1 June 2007.
Refined vegetable oil: highly processed vegetable oil that has been extracted and purified by
processes such as solvent extraction, distillation, degumming, neutralization, and
winterization. Refined oils consist almost entirely of TAGs.
Solvent extraction: most common and efficient method for extraction of vegetable oils from
seeds or fruits, see Cold pressing.
SVO: straight vegetable oil, sometimes called pure plant oil (PPO) – a refined, non-methylated
vegetable oil used directly or as a blend in engine fuels. See also Biodiesel and WVO.
Trait: genetic character of an organism that is inherited by its progeny. Breeding involves the
manipulation of traits in organisms such as crops and livestock.
Transgenic: an organism into which exogenous segments(s) of DNA, containing one or more
genes, have been transferred (see GM).
Transgene: exogenous gene transferred to a recipient organism using genetic engineering to
create a transgenic organism.
Transgenesis: the process of creating a transgenic, or GM, organism.
TAG: triacylglycerol – an ester of glycerol with three fatty acyl side-chains.
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture.
Vegetable oil: plant-derived, triacylglycerol-based lipidic substance that is normally liquid at
room temperature with possible uses in food, feed, or industry. Because they are derived
from recent photosynthesis, such oils are renewable and their combustion does not
contribute to net global CO2 emissions.
Virgin oil: relatively unrefined form of edible vegetable oil obtained by cold pressing. Such oils
often contain additional components, such as pigments, proteins, DNA, and lecithin, which
are not present in more refined oils.
Wax: an ester of two fatty acids that may sometimes have very similar properties to vegetable
oils, e.g. jojoba wax.
WVO: waste vegetable oil – used and recycled vegetable oil, e.g. frying oils from restaurants,
that can be used directly or as a blend in engine fuels. See also Biodiesel and SVO.
3
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
1. Scope of the report
This report aims to address the following five key topics:
A. To explain the technological advantages and industrial relevance behind the genetic
modification of plant oils
B. To highlight chemical and biological differences of oils from GMOs and non-GMOs
C. To establish if it is possible to distinguish analytically between oils derived from GMOs and
non-GMOs
D. To provide an overview on established or possible hazards (in the context of REACH)
regarding vegetable oils obtained from GMOs
E. To establish whether each case should be assessed individually or whether general
conclusions can be drawn about differences between oils from GMOs and non-GMOs
Several Appendices provide additional background information on the use of GMO oils for
biofuels and cosmetics, and on commercial and regulatory aspects of GM oil crops.
4
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
2. Introduction to vegetable oils, their extraction and role of GM
technology
This Section provides definitions of basic terms such as ‗vegetable oil‘ and outlines how such
oils are biosynthesised by plants and then extracted and processed for industrial uses.
Vegetable oils, fats, and oleochemicals
Oils and fats are terms used to describe a class of chemicals known as lipids. In its broadest
sense, a ‗lipid‘ refers to a wide range of water-insoluble, hydrophobic, and/or amphipathic
compounds. The most abundant plant lipids are acyl (fatty acid-containing) molecules such as
phospholipids, glycolipids, and triacylglycerols. Other important lipids include sterols,
carotenoids, tocopherols, phytols, and waxes. Lipids are key components of biological
membranes and are also used as storage fats and oils by most animals and plants. Plant lipids in
the form of vegetable oils have been extracted and processed for various non-food uses by
people for well over 7000 years (67).
For the purpose of this report, a plant is considered to be ‗any organism capable of oxygenic
photosynthesis‘. This definition includes land plants, algae, and cyanobacteria, all of which have
been used historically as sources of non-food industrial oil-derived products. Many of these
species are being used in research to produce new types of non-food/feed oils for industrial use.
For example, researchers in many countries are trying to engineer GM microalgae to serve as
large-scale generators of renewable, carbon-neutral oils for non-food use (see Appendix 4).
Oils tend to be liquid at room temperature while fats are normally solid. Most, but not all, plant
lipid products are liquid oils due to their high unsaturated fatty acid content, while most animal
lipid products tend to be solid fats that are more enriched in saturated fatty acids. However, there
are a few exceptions, such as solid vegetable ‗oils‘ like cocoa butter or shea butter that can also
be classified as fats. Saturated fatty acids do not contain any C=C double bonds whereas
unsaturated fatty acids may contain between one and six C=C double bonds (Fig 1A).
Oleochemicals can be defined as renewable chemical feedstocks and intermediates derived from
plant or animal oils and fats (3, 24, 25, 87). In contrast, petrochemicals are derived from nonrenewable, fossil-based hydrocarbons such as mineral oils and coal.
A
B
Figure 1. Chemical structures of plant lipid classes. A, fatty acids; B, triacylglycerol
Chemical structures of oils
By far the most common form of biologically derived fats and oils is the triacylglycerol (TAG)
molecule, i.e. a glycerol backbone esterified to three fatty acid (FA) residues (Fig 1B). In most
cases, the commercial exploitation of fats and oils involves the use of both glycerol and fatty
5
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
acids. TAGs are also the second most important source of dietary calories for humans (after
starch) and for most of the world‘s population plant oils are their principal sources of such lipids.
Many plant TAGs contain a mixture of fatty acids, with different acyl groups attached to each of
the three carbon atoms of the glycerol backbone. In different plant species, storage TAGs can
have hugely diverse acyl chain lengths and various acyl modifications such as hydroxylation,
epoxidation, conjugation, and triple bonds. The useful properties of many of these fatty acids
mean that storage oil composition has become a major target for genetic manipulation of plants.
Biosynthesis of oils in plants
In plants, fatty acids are synthesised from simple acetyl–CoA units (2:0), which are added
together to generate increasingly long saturated fatty acid chains from 4:0 right up to 16:0 or
18:0 (see Fig 2). In some plants C18 fatty acids can be elongated further as far as C24, but in the
major oil crops, the oils are overwhelmingly made up of C16 and C18 fatty acids. Saturated fatty
acids can also be desaturated to form unsaturated products such as 18:1 (oleic), 18:2 (linoleic),
and 18:3 (linolenic). These three fatty acids are the most common components of most
commercial vegetable oils although some plants are able to modify unsaturated fatty acids to
produce hydroxy, epoxy, trans, and other useful functionalities.
Lauric
12:0
2:0
4:0
12:0
16:0
Acetyl-CoA
18:1OH
18:2epoxy
18:3trans
18:0
20:0
22:0
18:1
20:1
22:1
18:2
20:2
18:3
20:3
Nervonic
24:0
Figure 2. Pathway of fatty acid biosynthesis and modification in plants
One of the key discoveries that made possible the genetic manipulation of fatty acid
compositions in plant oils is that chain elongation can be halted to release intermediate length
acyl groups, i.e. C4 to C14. This requires the action of one of several specific thioesterases
found in the small number of plants that accumulate shorter chain fatty acids in their seed oils.
Expression of these thioesterase genes in GM crops leads to premature acyl chain termination
and the accumulation of short-chain fatty acids in their seeds. In contrast, some plants are able to
elongate storage lipid acyl groups beyond C18 up to C24 by means of additional fatty acid
elongases. The expression of exogenous elongase genes in GM oil crops may increase the
accumulation of very long-chain fatty acids in seeds.
While chain length is a key determinant of the properties of a fatty acid, the other key property is
the way in which the saturated hydrocarbon chains are modified after de novo synthesis. This is
often referred to as the functionality of the acyl chain. The most common functionality
introduced into an acyl chain is unsaturation, namely presence of one or more double bonds. As
shown in Fig 2 and Table 2, other fatty acid functionalities include triple bonds, and hydroxy,
epoxy, and oxo groups. Most of the enzymes that introduce such functionalities into fatty acids
are derived from mutated versions of fatty acid desaturases. The sequencing of genes encoding
many modified desaturases has led to the engineering of new versions of these enzymes that may
be able to carry out industrially useful reactions (8, 9, 19, 57).
6
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Seed and fruit oils
Plant oils typically accumulate in the cotyledon or endosperm tissues of seeds (Fig 3A). In major
oilseed crops, such as rapeseed/canola or sunflower, TAGs can constitute 40–50% of total seed
weight. Storage lipids are also found in abundance in certain oil-rich fruits, such as in the
mesocarp tissue of olives, avocado, coconut and oil palm (Fig 3B).
A
B
Figure 3. A. structures of oil-bearing seeds; B. oil-rich fruits of oil palm
Storage lipids accumulate in the cytosol of seed or fruit cells as fluid TAG droplets (oil bodies)
of about 1-2 μm in diameter. Each oil body is surrounded by a phospholipid monolayer, and
often by a layer of specific lipid-binding proteins such as oleosins and caleosins. Oil-rich fruits,
such as olive, palm or avocado, accumulate relatively large, TAG-enriched but protein-depleted
oil bodies in their fleshy mesocarp (69). In the cells of developing fruits and seeds, oil bodies are
formed on the endoplasmic reticulum where acyl–CoAs produced by fatty acid modification
enzymes as described above are transferred to a glycerol backbone to form TAGs. Different
acylation reactions are catalysed by distinct acyltransferases and these enzymes play important
roles in regulating the final acyl composition of storage lipids.
A
B
Oil bodies
inside a
plant cell
Figure 4. Oil bodies in plant cells at low (A) and high (B) magnification
7
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Extraction of oils from plants
By far the most common method of vegetable oil extraction from plants is via solvents such as
hexane, isopropanol, or supercritical CO2. Typically, the solvent is pumped onto a bed of flaked
seeds to extract a crude TAG-rich oil that is largely free of proteins, DNA, or phospholipids
(lecithin). The solvent is recovered and reused while the crude oil is processed further to remove
remaining impurities. This involves neutralisation (to remove free fatty acids), bleaching (to
remove pigments), and deodorisation (to remove volatiles). The result is a highly purified oil
fraction consisting almost entirely of TAGs. These highly purified vegetable oils can be used
directly to make edible products, such as salad or cooking oils, or blended and/or hydrogenated
to make margarines or other spreads.
Alternatively, purified vegetable oils can be used as industrial feedstocks for conversion into
oleochemicals or biodiesel (Fig 5A). In many cases, several purified vegetable oils from
different sources will be blended together in order to produce mixed oils with appropriate fatty
acid compositions for a wide range of purposes, both edible and industrial. With very few
exceptions, virtually all industrial vegetable oils are obtained by solvent extraction. Such oils
normally contain little or no detectable protein or DNA and their lipid composition cannot be
used to diagnose GM origin of the oil (see Topic B and Appendix 1).
A
B
Figure 5. A. conversion of vegetable oils to oleochemicals; B. mechanical extraction of oils
As an alternative to solvent extraction, vegetable oils can be extracted via mechanical methods
such as pressing or crushing (Fig 5B). However, these methods are far more expensive and much
less efficient than solvent extraction. Today, mechanical methods such as cold pressing are only
used in a few highly priced niche markets for edible oils, such as virgin or extra-virgin olive oil.
In contrast to purified solvent-extracted oils, cold pressed oils are relatively crude mixtures that
may include proteins, DNA, gums, and pigments, in addition to TAGs. Due to their impurity and
inefficiency of extraction, cold pressed oils are rarely used in industry. One exception is the
occasional inclusion of small amounts of a few cold pressed vegetable oils as ingredients in
certain cosmetics, such as skin creams.
GM crops
A GMO (genetically modified organism) is an organism that contains additional DNA inserted
via genetic engineering. Most frequently, one or more extra genes are inserted to modify a
particular trait to give additional useful properties. In GM crops, two major trait categories have
been manipulated for commercial production. By far the most important are the input traits in
which the crop is modified in a way that makes it easier to manage and cultivate. Widely used
GM input traits include herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. As discussed in Section 4, over
8
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
99.5% of all 1st generation commercialised GM crops grown in 2011 contained either or both of
these two input traits. Because input traits only relate to plant growth and management, the
products of such crops are the same as those of non-GM versions of the same crop. The essential
identity of products such as vegetable oils from GM and non-GM input trait modified plants has
been verified by analysis of the full range of metabolites in several recent studies (1, 45).
In contrast to input traits, manipulation of output traits causes significant alterations in some of
the products obtained from a crop. To date, very few GM crops with modified output traits have
been commercialised. However, an increasing number of GM output trait-modified crops will be
released in the future. Examples include alterations in the oil, protein, starch, or fibre
composition of the harvested part of the crop in question. One of the very few GM output traitmodified crops grown in the EU is the Amflora™ potato, which was authorized for cultivation
in 2010. Amflora™ potatoes, developed by BASF, are modified to produce pure amylopectin
starch for the paper, textile and adhesives industries, and the EC also authorized use of its
byproducts as animal feed, but not for human foodstuffs. Over the next decade, existing 1st
generation input trait-modified GM crops will be supplemented by a new 2nd generation crops
with modified output traits, some designed specifically for industrial use. For example, in 2011
the USDA authorized Syngenta Seeds Inc to market Enogen™ maize, the first GM variety
engineered with modified output traits to serve as an improved biofuel feedstock.
Using unmodified vegetable oils as biofuels
The vast majority of vegetable oil-derived biofuel is biodiesel, which has been chemically
modified by methylation. However, it is possible to use unmodified or straight vegetable oil
(SVO) either directly or as a blend with other fuels in some vehicle engines (49a, 98a). SVO can
be sourced from newly refined vegetable oil or from used or waste oil (WVO). An example of
WVO would be used frying oils from large-scale food retailers who might collect this waste
product and sell it on to a biofuel user. Recently, there have been several high profile instances
of the use of SVO or WVO in transport fuels. For example, several airlines including KLM and
Finnair have recently announced that they were using WVO in their aviation fuel on some routes
(1a). However, in such cases the SVO/WVO was only a small component of the total fuel and
these feedstocks are unlikely to become a major form in which vegetable oils are used in the
future.
At present, the use of SVO/WVO as vehicle fuel is regulated in different ways by the various
EU member states. In some cases it might be used without additional cost while in other cases,
as in the UK, it may be taxed similarly to regular diesel fuel (98a). Most of the SVO/WVO in the
EU is currently obtained from rapeseed oil sourced from non-GM crops. However, it is also
possible to use GM-derived oils as SVO/WVO, e.g. imported Canadian rapeseed or American
soybean or maize oils, many of which are already produced from GM crop varieties. While
SVO/WVO has a lower carbon footprint to biodiesel, it tends to be expensive and cannot be used
below -10ºC, which limits its likely market penetration. Due to the relatively high price of
refined SVO and the small quantities and difficulties in collecting WVO, these forms of biofuel
make up a very small proportion of the total vegetable oil-derived biofuel used in the EU.
9
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
3. Addressing the five key topics
Topic A. What are the technological reasons for genetic modification of plant oils?
GM technology is a powerful tool to modify crops in order to produce a much broader range
of industrially useful oils than is currently possible using alternative breeding methods (8, 20,
54, 59, 67, 99). There are many potential markets for renewable, carbon-neutral, ‗eco-friendly‘,
oil-based chemicals that could be produced by crops as alternatives to non-renewable petroleum
products. Unfortunately, however, existing oil crops have restricted fatty acid compositions,
which constrains their use as industrial feedstocks (67). These crops mostly accumulate C16 or
C18 saturated and unsaturated fatty acids in their storage oils. The major fatty acids comprising
the world vegetable oil supply are therefore palmitic, oleic and linoleic acids as shown in Table 1.
In contrast to the highly restricted compositions of the major oil crops, surveys of wild plant
species have revealed a vast natural diversity of seed oils, many of which have significant
potential value, for both nutritional or industrial uses (36). Some measure of this diversity can be
seen in Table 2, which shows that different plant species can accumulate high levels of a huge
range of fatty acids with chain lengths from C8 to C24. In addition, numerous functionalities can
occur in these fatty acids, including conjugated and non-conjugated double bonds, triple bonds,
hydroxy, epoxy and oxo groups. Cyclopropenoids, cyclopentenoids and even fluoro fatty acids
add even more diversity to the list of naturally occurring fatty acid species (37, 59).
Table 1. Percentage fatty acid composition of the ‗big four‘ commodity oil crops
Note the predominance of palmitic, oleic and linoleic acids.
Rapeseed/
Crop
Oil palmb
Soybean
Sunflowerc
canola
Fatty acida
Palmitic, 16:0
11
5
6
45
Stearic, 18:0
5
4
1
5
Oleic, 18:1
22
20
38
61
Linoleic, 18:2
11
22
53
69
α-Linolenic, 18:3
0.2
8
10
0.1
a
Fatty acids are denoted by their carbon chain length followed by the number of double bonds; b
mesocarp oil; c high-linoleic variety. Data from Murphy (67)
In most cases, the plants listed in Table 2 are able to synthesize potential industrial oils because
they contain genes that are not present in the major oil crops listed in Table 1. This means that it
is normally not possible to use non-GM breeding methods to produce industrial fatty acids such
as ricinoleic or nervonic in major oil crop varieties. Another option is to domesticate plants that
already make such fatty acids so that they can be grown as major crops. For many decades there
have been many attempts to use conventional breeding approaches to improve the agronomic
performance of industrial oil crops, such as meadowfoam or castorbean but these have largely
failed on a commercial scale (65). More recently, therefore, researchers began to transfer genes
to mainstream commercial oil crops via GM technology in order to create new industrial oils.
Over the past 30 years, many genes regulating fatty acid and TAG metabolism have been
isolated from various species (see Table 2) and several GM rapeseed and soybean varieties with
modified seed oils, are now available for cultivation. In principle (but not yet in commercial
practice), genes can be transferred from donor species into crops, such as soybean and rapeseed,
to produce fatty acids from C8 to C24 with any functionality (8). Examples of transfer of
potentially oil-modifying genes into oilseeds and the levels of the new fatty acids are shown in
10
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Table 10. However, with few exceptions, levels of such fatty acids in transgenic plants remain
far from achieving commercial viability (see Appendix 2 and refs 9, 20, 54, 60).
Table 2. Diversity of fatty acyl composition in selected plant oils
Fatty acid
% FA
in oil
Plant species
94%
Cuphea avigera
Fuel, food
Cuphea koehneana
Litsea stocksii
Knema globularia
Chinese Tallow
Triadica sebifera
Garcinia cornea
Detergents, food
Detergents, food
Soaps, cosmetics
Food, soaps
Chain length/
functionality
8:0a
Common
name
Caprylic
10:0
12:0
14:0
16:0
Capric
Lauric
Myristic
Palmitic
95%
94%
92%
75%
18:0
Stearic
65%
16:1
Palmitoleic
40%
18:1
18:1 9c
18:1
18:1 6c
cyclopropene-18:1
18:1 9,10-me, 9c
18:2
18:2 9c,12c,
α-18:3
18:3 9c,12c,15c
γ-18:3
18:3 6c, 9c,12c
OH-18:1
18:1 9c,12OH
epoxy-18:1
18:1 9c,12epx
triple-18:2
18:2 9c,12trp
oxo-18:3
4-oxo-9c11t13t
18:3 8t,10t,12c
Oleic
78%
Petroselinic
76%
Sterculic
50%
Linoleic
75%
α-linolenic
60%
γ-linolenic
25%
Ricinoleic
90%
Vernolic
70%
Crepenynic
70%
Licanic
78%
Commercial uses
Non-food uses in bold
Sea Buckthorn
Hippophae rhamnoides
Oliveb
Olea europea
Corianderb
Coriandrum sativum
Sterculia foetida
Sunflower
Helianthus annuus
Linseedb
Linum usitatissimum
Borageb
Borago officianalis
Castorb
Ricinus communis
Ironweed
Vernonia galamensis
Crepis alpinab
Food, confectionery
Cosmetics
Food, lubricants, inks
Nylons, detergents
Insecticides,
herbicides
Food, coatings
Paints, varnishes
Therapeutic products
Plasticizers,
lubricants
Resins, coatings
Coatings, lubricants
Oiticica
Paints, inks
Licania rigida
Calendic
60%
Calendula
Paints, coatings
Calendula officinalis
18:3 9c,11t,13t
α-Eleostearic
70%
Tung
Enamels, varnishes,
Vernicia fordii
resins, coatings
18:3 9c,11t,13c
Punicic
70%
Pomegranate
Varnishes, resins,
Punica granatum
coatings
20:0
Arachidic
35%
Rambutan
Lubricants
Nephelium lappaceumb
20:1
Eicosenoic
67%
Meadowfoamb
Polymers, cosmetics
Limnanthes alba
22:0
Behenic
48%
Asian mustard
Lubricants
Brassica tournefortii
22:1
Erucic
56%
Crambeb
Polymers, inks
Crambe abyssinica
wax 20:1/22:1
Jojoba wax
95%
Jojobab
Cosmetics, lubricants
Simmondsia chinensis
24:1
Nervonic
24%
Honestyb
Pharmaceuticals
Lunaria biennis
a
c, cis double bond; t, trans double bond; epx, epoxy group; trp, triple bond; me, methylene
b
indicates that genes have been isolated for synthesis of these fatty acids. Murphy (67)
11
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Topic B. Highlight the chemical and biological differences of oils generated from
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and non-GMOs
There are no chemical or biological differences between the fatty acid components of vegetable
oils produced from GM or non-GM plants (10, 59, 67). For example, lauric acid or oleic acid
molecules from GM plants will be identical to lauric or oleic molecules derived from non-GM
plants (107). In the case of input trait-modified GM plants, their entire oil compositions will be
indistinguishable from those produced by non-GM versions of the same crop. For example, oils
from the most common GM crops grown at present (maize, soybean, rapeseed, and cotton) have
the same acyl compositions as oils from non-GM varieties of these four oilseed crops (62).
It is possible, in principle, to use GM methods to produce new oil compositions in crops via
modification of output traits (9, 10, 54, 70). But new oil compositions can also be produced in
crops via non-GM breeding methods (60, 67). For example, naturally occurring rapeseed
produces an oil enriched in erucic acid (C22:1). During the 1960s, the composition of rapeseed
oil was modified by non-GM breeding to produce a new oil with oleic acid (C18:1) as the major
component and erucic acid at <1%. Today, all edible rapeseed varieties contain the new higholeic oil, while the older high-erucic rapeseed varieties are only grown in a few regions to
provide specialized industrial oils. Therefore the manipulation of crops to alter their oil content
can be achieved using both GM and non-GM methods.
Topic C. Establish if it is possible to distinguish analytically between oils derived from
GMOs and non-GMOs
Current analytical techniques do not allow definitive distinctions between the fatty acid
compositions of oils from GMOs and non-GMOs (67). As outlined above, individual fatty acids
from GM and non-GM crops are chemically identical. If future GM crop varieties were to have
different overall oil profiles, it would not be possible to definitively state whether the
composition of a particular oil sample was the result of it being derived from a specific type of
GM crop. For example, very high oleate (<90% total oil) soybean varieties have been produced
by GM methods, but similar oil compositions can be produced by non-GM methods (60, 67).
Even if a sample of soybean oil contained high levels of a fatty acid (e.g. lauric) that soybean
cannot normally accumulate, the mere presence of lauric acid would not be definitive proof of a
GM origin of the oil. This is because the lauric acid might be present in the sample because it
had been blended with a non-GM source of lauric, such as palm or coconut oil. Because the
lauric acid in each case is chemically identical, there is no way of definitively proving that it
originally came from a GM or a non-GM source.
Therefore, while direct analysis of the lipid composition of vegetable oil samples might in some
cases give indicative data about a putative GM origin, it would not provide a definitive
diagnosis. To give another example, the presence of ricinoleic acid in a rapeseed oil sample
might indicate a GM origin because non-GM rapeseed cannot make this oil. However, such an
analysis could not rule out the possibility that the ricinoleate came from a non-GM source such
as castor oil (67). Therefore, standard lipid analytical techniques such as gas-chromatography
(GC), high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and GC mass spectroscopy (GC-MS)
can only provide inferential data on GM status and will only be useful where the provenance of a
batch of oil can be traced with certainty. Because most industrial oilseeds are mixed and blended
with other oils at an early stage of processing in order to achieve the desired acyl composition, in
the majority of cases it would be virtually impossible to reliably determine the presence of a
component of GM origin once an oil had been extracted from the original plant material.
12
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Although fatty acid analysis is of relatively limited value in determining the GM status of a
vegetable oil, it may be possible to detect GM components such as proteins or DNA if these are
present in the oil. As described in Appendix 1, there are preliminary reports that GM-derived
DNA might sometimes be traceable in some refined oils. However, such methods are still under
development and may not be suitable for assaying industrial oils.
Topic D. Provide an overview on established or possible hazards (in the context of
REACH) regarding vegetable oils obtained from GMOs
Vegetable oils obtained from GMOs are unlikely to provide new hazards to health or safety
(58, 59). In the case of input trait-modified GM crops their derived oils will be virtually identical
to those from non-GM counterparts. In the case of output trait-modified GM crops their oils
might contain fatty acids that are not normally found in a particular crop species, but the same
fatty acid will be a naturally occurring constituent of a non-GMO oil (10). It should be stressed
that all of the industrial fatty acids that have been proposed as possible targets for GM-based
production in oil crops already exist as natural products that occur in various plants or other
organisms (8, 11, 25, 58, 59, 65, 67). Many of these fatty acids are listed in Table 2.
As noted above, in the case of oils from GM plants modified to produce different fatty acids,
these ‗new‘ fatty acids will be physically and chemically identical to existing fatty acids derived
from other plants, or from other organisms, or from synthetic (non-biological) sources (57).
Therefore there are probably no extra hazards or risks arising from the production of such fatty
acids (or their derivatives) simply because they are sourced from GM plant feedstocks.
Toxicology data for commercially used fatty acids should already be known as this would be
part of existing risk assessment procedures. In terms of ecotoxicological risks, current research
and regulation are based largely on an environmental risk analysis (ERA) of the performance of
whole plants in agronomic field trials as recently described in EFSA documents and elsewhere
(23a, 36a). Such ERA trials have mostly been concerned with products of 1 st generation GM
crops such as herbicides and insecticides. It seems unlikely that the nature-identical industrial
fatty acids that could be present in some future 2nd generation GM crops should merit additional
ecotoxicological monitoring.
Any industrial fatty acid or oil could have specific hazards or risks involved in its storage or use,
but these will be the same for each particular fatty acid or oil irrespective of its provenance. The
use of a particular fatty acid or oil, such as ricinoleic-rich or lauric-rich TAGs, already requires
case-by-case risk assessment. But no additional measures should be required whether the fatty
acid or oil came from GM rapeseed, non-GM castor, GM or non-GM oil palm, or had a wholly
synthetic origin. In all such cases the fatty acid or oil should have identical properties and should
therefore merit similar risk assessment procedures. In short, the chemical and physical properties
of industrial oils and potential hazards and risk assessment arising from their use are technologyneutral and are already covered by other risk assessment procedures in relevant legislation.
Topic E. Establish whether each case is unique and has to be assessed individually or if it is
likely that general conclusions can be drawn on the difference between oils derived from
GMO and non-GMOs
The regulation of GM crops and their products is currently focused on crops grown for food and
feed markets (23b). The occurrence of several high-profile episodes involving (non-GM)
contamination of food/feed chains (e.g. BSE, E. coli O157, Salmonella etc) has raised public
concerns about the potential food safety implications of GM crops, which in turn has shaped the
current case-by-case regulatory framework, especially in the EU (62).
13
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
As described in more detail in Sections 4 and 5 (see below), almost all commercially grown GM
crops over the past two decades have been varieties in which so-called input traits have been
modified. The two major input traits (present in over 99% of the global GM crop area in late
2011) are herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance. Crops modified for these traits still make
the same products as their non-GM counterparts and their main benefits are in simplifying crop
management by farmers and in some cases in reducing levels of chemical inputs such as
insecticides. These are referred to here as 1st generation GM crops. In the next few years these
crops will be joined by a 2nd generation of GM crops in which output traits such as oil or starch
composition have been modified compared to their non-GM counterparts.
This may require segregation and possibly different forms of regulation for such 2nd generation
of GM crops. For example, in terms of their products, the current 1st generation of input traitmodified GM crops are regarded as the same as their non-GM counterparts. This means that
their nutritional compositions are virtually identical and is reflected in the way such crops are
regulated. However, if an output trait modified GM crop produces a different industrial oil from
previous versions of the crop, it may be necessary to assess risks to human/animal health that
might result if such a product were to enter food/feed chains (59, 62). For example, scenarios
could be created to model possible contamination routes and the amounts of oils or their
derivatives that might be present in a particular food/feed product as a result of such
contamination.
For any industrial vegetable oil produced in the open environment, whether GM or not, it may
be desirable to assess risk of its accidental entry into food/feed chains (23b, 110). A combination
of known toxicology data for each plant oil and its assessed likelihood of entry into food/feed
chains could then form the basis of regulatory protocols. Such protocols might involve
recommendations for management and segregation of any new crops and their products, plus
establishment of monitoring procedures in cases where there is a possibility of entry into
food/feed chains. Finally, it may be desirable to set upper limits to the permissible presence of
such oils in food/feed chains if this is appropriate. As noted above, such a system has functioned
well with high-erucic industrial rapeseed oil for over 50 years (60, 62, 81).
These considerations imply that a case-by-case approach to the regulation of new vegetable
oils may be desirable. Moreover, because the risk is from the new oil itself, and not from the
process by which it was produced in the crop, the regulation of such oils should be the same
whether they come from plants that happen to have been bred via GM technology or via any
other form of plant breeding. In the case of crops that have GM traits that modify both the oil
composition and unrelated characters (such as herbicide tolerance), the risks arising from the
new oil should be considered separately from the assessment of the unrelated characters. Within
the EU, regulatory procedures covering input traits such as herbicide tolerance that may be the
only GM trait in an industrial oil crop are already assessed by EFSA.
14
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
4. Implications of first-generation GM crops
The first commercially successful GM crops were developed by agrochemical companies, such
as Monsanto and Bayer. The initial targets were single-gene traits for which genes were already
available. By the early 1990s, several genes had been identified that altered key input traits in
crops. An input trait can be defined as a genetic character that affects how the crop is grown
without changing the nature of the harvested product. Examples include herbicide tolerance and
insect resistance, which are useful traits for farmers because they simplify the process of crop
cultivation and can reduce yield losses due to weeds or insect pests. Because a modified input
trait does not affect the product of the crop, e.g. its seed composition, the new GM crop varieties
could be harvested and processed in the same way as conventional varieties. In other words there
were no additional costs associated with downstream processing of the crop (62).
The input trait strategy was commercially attractive for three main reasons: (i) agrochemical
companies could sell a package consisting of their proprietary herbicide + their patented GM
seed to farmers, who were obliged to use only this particular herbicide; (ii) the utility patents that
applied to GM seeds gave the company stronger ownership rights than for non-GM seeds
carrying a similar trait; (iii) because the GM seeds belonged to the company, farmers could not
save seed from their crop and had to repurchase new seed and herbicide from the company each
year (62). From the early years of GM crop cultivation, herbicide tolerance traits dominated the
market and this domination continued into the 2010s, as shown below in Table 3. This shows
that well >99.9% of current GM crop production comes from the four species: soybean, maize,
cotton, and rapeseed. Although all of these crops are technically oilseeds, and some of their oil is
used for industrial purposes, by far their main use is as food, feed, or fibre feedstocks. Also,
since none of the GM traits involves oil modification, the oil from such input trait modified
varieties should be identical in all respects to oil from non-GM varieties of the same crop.
Table 3. Major global transgenic crops and traits in 2010
Crop
Area, Mha
%
Soybean
Maize
Cotton
Rapeseed/canola
Sugar beet
Alfalfa
Others
Total
73.3
46.8
21.0
7.0
0.5
0.1
<0.1
ca148
50
31
14
5
<1
<1
<1
100
Trait
Area, Mha
%
Herbicide tolerance
89.3
Insect resistance (Bt)
26.3
Herbicide tolerance +
32.3
Insect resistance
Others
<0.1
Total
ca148
Data adapted from James (42)
60
18
22
<0.1
100
Although almost all GM crops grown today contain one or more of the input traits listed in Table
3, several early commercially released GM crops contained modified output traits. Indeed, one
of these early GM crops was a rapeseed variety that produced an industrial oil. This GM oilseed
crop was released in 1995 in the USA by the small biotech company, Calgene, and was a lauric
15
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
acid-rich variety (Laurical™) of rapeseed. Laurical™ was produced by transferring a gene
encoding a C12-specific thioesterase from the California Bay plant, Umbelluria californica, into
rapeseed. The addition of several additional transgenes enabled Calgene breeders to produce
Laurical™ seed oil that contained 60% w/w lauric (107). However, even this relatively lauricrich oil crop was unable to compete commercially with the standard commodity lauric oil, which
was (and still is) obtained from the far cheaper and more plentiful (and non-GM) palm kernel
oil. Therefore, although the Laurical™ brand of transgenic rapeseed was technically successful,
it was a commercial failure and was only grown for a few seasons during the mid-1990s in the
southern USA. Since that time there have been no further releases of GM crops specifically
modified to produce industrial oils and none of the subsequent 1st generation GM crops released
between 1996 and 2009 were modified for output traits such as oil composition.
1st generation GM crops contain one or more GM-derived proteins not present in the original
plant and there is a theoretical possibility that such proteins might be allergenic. However,
because no proteins are present in refined industrial vegetable oils, such oils would be no
different in their allergenicity to non-GM oils. It is also theoretically possible that the presence
of a transgene in an organism could lead to unintended phenotypic effects. For example a
transgene insertion might alter the expression of an endogenous gene. Such effects might be
minor but recent advances in analyzing the extent and nature of gene transcription in different
tissues and under many different conditions (the transcriptome) and in determining the identity
and levels of thousands of metabolites (the metabolome) have made it possible to detect such
changes if they are present in a plant. So far, studies indicate that the overall gene expression and
metabolic status of the GM plants analyzed were virtually indistinguishable from their non-GM
counterparts. Indeed, in studies with maize and barley, non-GM varieties showed more
differences between non-GM forms than with GM forms of each species; also, environmental
factors caused more changes than GM influences (1, 45).
The current status of GM versions of the ‘big three’ vegetable oil crops is as follows:
GM soybean: In 2010, GM herbicide tolerant/insect resistant varieties accounted for >81% of
the global soybean crop area, mainly grown in USA, Brazil, and Argentina (28). This is already
making it increasingly difficult for importing regions, such as the EU, to exclude such varieties
should they wish to maintain a ‗GM-free‘ policy. At present the EU imports 30 MT soybean
seed and 13 MT soybean meal which must have <0.9% GM content to qualify as ‗GM-free‘
under EU labeling requirements (75). This is now a critical issue for the animal feed sector
where organic farmers in particular are facing significant price premiums for increasingly scarce
supplies of ‗GM-free‘ soybean (1c).
GM rapeseed: About 23% of global rapeseed production currently comes from GM varieties,
but at present all GM rapeseed stocks are in the form of edible ‗canola‘-branded cultivars rather
than high-erucic industrial rapeseed. While there is no GM rapeseed grown in the EU at present,
94% of Canadian and 88% of US rapeseed is GM, which complicates the possible import of seed
or oil from these major producing countries.
GM oil palm: So far, no GM varieties of oil palm have been produced, but as discussed below in
Section 5, research into GM varieties producing a range of additional industrial oils is well
underway in Malaysia, and possibly elsewhere (88, 93).
In conclusion: over 99% of existing „1st generation‟ GM crops are only modified for output
traits that have no impact on the composition of vegetable oils extracted from such crops.
Therefore, existing GM-derived vegetable oils are chemically identical to oils from their existing
non-GM-derived counterparts.
16
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
5. Implications of second-generation GM crops
In Section 4, we saw that almost all existing GM crops are input trait modified with oils that are
identical to those in equivalent non-GM crops. However, as discussed above in Topic E, there
are compelling reasons to use all available technologies, including GM, to extend the range of
fatty acids produced in crops so that more useful industrial (and edible oils) can be obtained.
This will involve the development of a new ‗2nd generation‘ of output trait-modified GM crops
that produce new types of oil (or other products such as starch or protein) (56). In the coming
years, market drivers such as increased commodity prices (e.g. for fossil-derived oil feedstocks)
will accelerate the introduction of GM vegetable oils (8, 9, 20, 54, 60, 69). Other drivers will
include wider use of GM technology by developing countries (66, 69, 88).
As discussed below in Appendix 6, 1st generation GM crops are dominated by mainly US-based
multinational agrochemical companies, but oil crop production and the development of new GM
varieties is increasingly shifting to countries such as Brazil, Argentina, India, South Africa, and
Malaysia. For example between 1961 and 2007 global output of the major oilseed crop, soybean,
increased from 28.6 to 217.6 MT with a recent shift in production away from the USA to Brazil
and Argentina, which together now produce 44% of global output, much of which is exported to
Europe (52). New varieties of oil palm could potentially double the yield of this crop and make
it even more competitive with mineral oil as a global chemical feedstock (61, 66, 88).
After over a decade of relative stagnation, increasing numbers of 2nd generation GM output trait
crops are now being released. Many of these traits, e.g. enhanced nutritional content, are much
more relevant to consumers than 1st generation input traits. During the next decade we can
expect many more GM crops with improved protein, lipid, starch, and vitamin profiles, and
processing or storage properties. Many more GM crop species will be developed and the
technology will be used much more in developing countries, often for public-good as well as for
commercial applications (69). As the utility and provenance of GM crops is extended, and
potential (albeit highly unlikely) risks are addressed (e.g. by eliminating antibiotic resistance
genes), it seems likely that the technology will become more acceptable to the general public in
a similar manner to the now widespread acceptance of GM technology when used for production
of GM-derived therapeutic products such as blood-clotting factors or human insulin (69).
Prospects for the modification of plant oils for non-food/feed use are good as new advanced
breeding technologies are increasingly used around the world, including in developing countries
that are already major vegetable oil producers. Not all these technologies are GM based, but
because the genes required for the biosynthesis of many industrial oils are absent from the best
yielding crop production platforms, in many cases GM technology may be the only way to
generate new industrial oil compositions. New GM tools include site-specific integration of
transgenes, as used in soybean (48), and the stacking of multiple transgenes at a selected
genomic site via repeated recombinase-mediated DNA cassette exchanges (49). So-called GM
trait stacking is already being applied to the latest batch of 1 st generation GM input trait
varieties. For example, in August 2011 Dow AgroSciences and MS Technologies submitted the
first three-gene multi-herbicide-tolerant variety of soybean (Enlist™) for USDA approval.
GM trait stacking will potentially have even more impact once it is deployed more widely for
output traits such as oil modification. Broader approaches include so-called ‗green systems
biology‘ that encompasses the use of genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics for crop
manipulation (109). Several gene silencing and mutagenesis technologies are compared in Table
4. Although all these methods involve gene disruption, only the final three examples (in red) are
classified as GM. In contrast, the first four methods (in blue) are not legally regarded as GM
even though they involve the scientific manipulation of DNA sequences using either chemical
agents or high-energy radiation sources.
17
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Table 4. Comparison of different gene silencing/mutagenesis technologies
Mutagenic agent
Effect on DNA structure
Comments
or gene expression
Ethylmethane
Point mutations, CG to AT Large range of mutations including gain and
sulphonate (EMS)‡ transitions
loss of gene function
High efficiency, 100s of mutations per genome
Di-epoxy butane
Point mutations, 6-8 bp
Difficult to locate mutations in genome
(DEB)‡
deletions
Gamma-rays or X- Chromosome breaks and
Large insertions, deletions, and rearrangements
rays‡
rearrangements
Mostly loss of function mutations
Medium efficiency
Fast neutrons‡
Deletions, <1 kb
Difficult to locate mutations in genome
T-DNA*
DNA insertion
Insertion of specific DNA sequences
Mostly loss of function mutations
Low efficiency
Transposons *
DNA insertion/deletion
Easy identification of mutations
RNAi or zincDNA insertion so that
Very effective; Targets single genes
finger constructs*
transcribed gene product
Causes loss of function
causes gene silencing
Requires knowledge of target gene function
‡ non-GM method; * transgenic (GM) method; data from Murphy (69)
There have been several recent examples of non-GM breeding methods being used to modify
seed oil fatty acid content for industrial use, meaning that the oil itself was not the product of
GM methods. However, at a later stage of the breeding process, some of these non-GM varieties
were crossbred with other varieties of the same crop expressing a GM trait, such as herbicide
tolerance, that was unrelated to oil modification. According to current EU and US legislation the
resulting plants, which produce industrial oils, are regarded as GMOs although their modified oil
composition does not result from GM processes.
For example, Monsanto has recently marketed a very high oleic soybean variety called
Vistive™. Due to its high monounsaturate and low polyunsaturate content compared with
existing soybean oils, Vistive™ oil is likely to find numerous oleochemical applications such as
in lubricant and ink formulations, as well as being a premium quality edible oil. The high oleic
acid phenotype of Vistive™ is the result of non-GM breeding but because the breeders
subsequently crossed their high oleic line with an older GM herbicide-tolerant line, Vistive™ is
now treated as a GMO. Moreover, because high oleic soybean is not necessarily indicative of a
GM origin, even within a bag of Vistive™ seed, the only way to diagnose the seeds as of GM
origin would be perform protein or DNA analysis. And once the Vistive™ oil has been refined it
would be very difficult to infer anything conclusive about its putative GM provenance. This will
make it very problematic to attempt to trace Vistive™ oil once it has been refined for industrial
(or food) use.
In view of the gradual pace of progress at the R&D stage, it is unlikely that many new industrial
oil crops with 2nd generation GM-modified output traits will be widely grown in the immediate
future. However, given the recent advances in GM technology and the growing market demands
for industrial oils, many more GM industrial oil crops may well be available later in the 2010s.
Given the likely increase in the production of and globalized trade in renewable, carbon-neutral
oleochemicals in the coming years, therefore, it will become ever more challenging to regulate
vegetable oil-derived non-food products on the basis of a possible GM provenance.
18
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
6. Concluding remarks
This report provides evidence that over the course of the next decade an increasing volume of
GM- and non-GM-derived vegetable oils from a growing range of crops is likely to enter global
markets, including the EU. Such vegetable oils will increasingly provide a diverse range of
renewable, carbon-neutral, organic feedstocks for use in a wide variety of industrial applications.
In the medium term, both GM- and non-GM-derived vegetable oils will be required in everincreasing quantities to act as substitutes for increasingly scarce and expensive non-renewable,
fossil-derived hydrocarbon feedstocks for industrial uses such as oleochemicals ands biofuels.
A key question for this report was whether vegetable oils from GM and non-GM sources can be
differentiated in a scientifically meaningful way that would result in their clear separation into
two distinctive categories of chemical substance. In approaching this question, the report has
examined whether there are any chemical and/or biological differences between vegetable oils
derived from GM or non-GM plant sources and if so whether these oils can be distinguished
from one another via currently available analytical techniques.
The most important conclusion from this study is that the fatty acid constituents of GM-derived
vegetable oils are identical to those that occur naturally in other plants and non-plant organisms.
This means that it is not possible to distinguish analytically between a fatty acid, such as lauric
acid, that came from a GM crop such as rapeseed from lauric acid produced by a non-GM source
such as coconut oil. Although the chemical identity of individual fatty acids present in GM- and
non-GM derived vegetable oils will be identical, the composition of a particular refined oil
might sometimes enable a putative GM or non-GM origin to be inferred. However, more definite
identification techniques based on validated DNA methodologies are not yet available.
All fatty acids likely to be present in future GM-derived vegetable oils are already produced by
naturally occurring (non-GM) sources such as plants or other organisms. Therefore the presence
of such fatty acids in a given vegetable oil should not create novel categories of risk. However, if
a new variety of an existing crop is bred to produce a completely different type of refined oil
compared to existing varieties, issues of segregation and entry into food/feed chains may require
monitoring on a case-by-case basis. Such procedures should be adopted irrespective of the
nature of the kind of breeding approach used (i.e. it should be the same for GM- and non-GM
derived oil crops) because the only relevant issue in a risk assessment context is the composition
of the oil, not its provenance.
19
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Appendix 1. Methods to detect material of GM origin in plants
Detecting DNA in oils
As noted in Topic C of the main document, fatty acid analysis cannot be used to definitively
prove a GM origin of a sample of vegetable oil. However, if DNA or protein is present in the oil,
the GM origin of these non-lipid components could theoretically be detected. Alternatively, if
plant material from which the oil was derived (e.g. seeds) were available this could be tested for
GM content. In some cases these plant samples may be highly processed, e.g. by grinding or
even toasting, but could still be capable of reliable analysis for GM content. The two principal
analytical methods are enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detection of GMderived proteins and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of transgenic DNA
sequences. Both techniques are highly sensitive but both have the drawback that the identity of
the target GM protein or DNA must be known in advance. Therefore these methods are less
useful in dealing with samples of unknown origin.
ELISA has the advantage of detecting a functional gene product rather than merely the presence
of parts of a transgene. Because some ELISA kits have been designed to detect denatured
versions of a transgenic protein, they can be used to detect GM material, not only in seeds, but
also in highly processed products such as flour or cooked foodstuffs (75). ELISA can detect the
presence of a specific GM-derived protein at levels well below the EU threshold of 0.9% that is
required for mandatory labeling of an item as GM product. In the case of a GM crop modified to
produce a specific industrial oil, reliable ELISA methods could be devised to detect those
transgene-derived enzymes, such as hydroxylases or thioesterases, that are responsible for the
particular GM phenotype, proving the sample contained such proteins. ELISA kits for GM
analysis are already commercially available for most 1st generation traits such as herbicide
tolerance and Bt insect resistance and the development of new kits for industrial oil crops could
be done quickly and at moderate cost. However, because no proteins are present in refined
industrial oils, ELISA cannot be used to detect GM proteins in such oil samples.
The major DNA detection methods are PCR-based and several commercial kits are available (4,
13). The PCR method can be even more sensitive than ELISA but requires the presence of
suitably intact DNA in the sample and advance knowledge of which DNA sequence is being
sought. Also, PCR normally only detects the presence of a small part of a transgene, and cannot
determine whether it is biologically active. At present there are no validated PCR-based methods
for detection of DNA in refined industrial oils and several reports of failure to isolate suitably
intact DNA from refined oils (18a, 34a, 34b, 42a). However, this is an active field of research
and there have been a few recent reports that it might be possible to isolate DNA from some
refined oils using some commercial kits (13a, 13b, 18a), and to detect as little as 0.1 fmol DNA
in oil samples using thin-film chips (1c, 5). At present, DNA yields tend to be low and highly
fragmented so that only very small amplicon lengths (ca 100 bp) can be used and even here the
presence of inhibitors means that no PCR products were obtained from several types of refined
oil (5, 13a). This means that such methods could give rise to both false positives and false
negatives, which makes it unlikely that they would be suitable in their present form to be
adopted as officially approved analytical procedures.
The extremely high sensitivity of PCR methods can be a drawback as they can detect tiny
amounts of GM-derived DNA (<0.1 fmol) that may result from contamination that is several
orders of magnitude below the 0.9% EU threshold. Current PCR-based methods are not suitable
for precise quantitative determination of DNA sequences so a positive analysis would have
limited value for monitoring or regulation. Given that most industrial vegetable oil feedstocks
are bulk shipped as seed or oil in tankers in a globalized trade network, it would be virtually
impossible to guarantee that a single GM seed or a gram of oil was not present in a tankerload of
millions of seeds of thousands of tonnes of oil. Therefore, simply detecting the adventitious
presence of GM-derived DNA sequences via PCR may not be very informative or useful.
20
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Even if it eventually becomes technically feasible, the successful detection of GM DNA in oil
samples will still require advanced knowledge of identity of the particular transgene in question
(16, 17). Even today there are many different transgenic DNA sequences in various GM oil
crops and the number is likely to increase significantly in the future as more GM crop varieties
are produced around the world. It is impossible to set up an analytical method in a cost-effective
manner that can assay for all the hundreds of known and unknown GMOs that may be in
circulation at a given time. This is becoming an increasing challenge as an many more countries,
especially in Asia and South America, develop homegrown GM technologies and release their
own GM crops, many of which will then exported into global trade networks.
There is at present very limited scope for monitoring industrial raw materials such as refined
vegetable oils for the presence of GM-derived material.
Even if DNA detection methods improve in the future, the expansion of GM technology and
use of additional transgenes will make it almost impossible to assay samples for unknown
DNA sequences.
21
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Appendix 2. Technical challenges to producing GM industrial oil crops
Transgenesis is the transfer of genes into an organism using recombinant DNA methods.
Transgenes can be derived from any biological organism or may be completely synthetic. Prior
to transgenesis, the only way to incorporate new genes into an organism was to set up a sexual
cross with a compatible species containing the gene of interest. However, this approach is
relatively time consuming and is limited to species with which the plant can be successfully
crossed. Thanks to advances in tissue culture-assisted wide crossing this list is steadily growing,
but it will always be restricted to relatively close relatives of the target plant. Therefore
transgenesis has been seen as a way to enhance variation in plants far beyond the capacity of
methods previously available to plant breeders (69).
The transfer of genes into cells that could be successfully regenerated into viable adult plants
was first achieved in the early 1980s. It was made possible by advances in DNA manipulation
and in the culturing and regeneration of plant cells and tissues. The core technologies of DNA
manipulation are based on the use of enzymes to cleave and ligate small sections of DNA. This
can create new DNA combinations that can be inserted into a vector for eventual transfer into a
plant cell. Many of these methods were originally developed in the 1970s using microbial
systems and then extended to higher plants. It is also necessary to know the identity of and to
have isolated copies of the genes that are to be transferred to a recipient plant. Initially,
researchers only had access to a few relatively well-studied genes that regulated genetically
simple traits. The small number of available transgene candidates has greatly limited the scope
of GM technology in its early decades (62, 69).
Gene transfer into a recipient organism can be achieved either by physical propulsion (biolistics)
or via biological vectors. It is then necessary to select what is often a small number of
transformed cells and to eliminate non-transformants. Sometimes this has involved use of
antibiotic resistance genes. In certain cases, use of such genes has been controversial and has
complicated regulatory processes in some jurisdictions, although alternative less problematic
selection methods are now available (62). The next challenge is to regenerate transgenic plants
in which the transgene function in the appropriate manner. This requires a great deal of tissue
culture expertise and selection to eliminate chimeric or other undesirable progeny. The rate of
success in producing suitable transformants can be low and the entire process is often time
consuming and labour intensive. However, in comparison with other biotechnologies such as
wide crossing or mutagenesis, transgenesis can be relatively fast, although its subsequent
progress may be delayed (sometimes considerably) by the often complex and lengthy regulatory
procedures that are not applied to other crop biotechnologies (62, 69).
The as-yet unrealized challenge for biotechnologists has been to produce a wide range of
industrially useful fatty acids in GM plants at sufficiently high levels for commercial viability
(70, 99). At present, most of these fatty acids only accumulate at relatively low levels in
transgenic species (see Table 5). In vast the majority of cases, most of which are not shown in
the Table, extremely low levels (<5%) of the desired fatty acids were produced in GM seeds – as
in the example of <1% in coriander shown in Table 5. The main reason for these disappointingly
low oil yields is that simply transferring the relevant hydroxylase or desaturase gene into a plant
does not mean that the corresponding hydroxy or polyunsaturated fatty acid will necessarily
accumulate at high levels in the storage oil of the recipient plant. Indeed, despite over 20 years
of often-ingenious efforts by molecular biologists, yields of such fatty acids in most transgenic
plants mostly remain low (9, 60, 67).
Sometimes, as with the transgenic Laurical™ rapeseed (see Section 4), desired levels of useful
fatty acid can be increased by transferring additional acyltransferase genes to ensure that the
fatty acids are efficiently assembled onto triacylglycerols (107). But it is not always possible to
predict which additional enzymes/genes may be required to accumulate a given fatty acid. More
22
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
recently, the role of diacylglycerol acyltransferase (DGAT) in ensuring accumulation of fatty
acids has been reported by several groups (9, 67). Evidence from several plant species suggests
that the type-2 acyl-coenzyme A:diacylglycerol acyltransferase (DGAT2) can sometimes
stimulate the accumulation of exotic fatty acids in storage triacylglycerols (46, 92).
Table 5. List of some GM oilseeds modified to produce potential industrial oils.
Donor species % FA in donor
Recipient GM
% FA in
species
oilseed
recipient species
Fatty acida
Lauric
California Bay
65
Rapeseed
60
12:0
(Laurical™)
Petroselinic
Coriander
80
Arabidopsis
<1
18:1 6c
Ricinoleic
Castor bean
90
Arabidopsis
26
18:1-OH
Vernolic
Crepis
60
Arabidopsis
15
18:1 9c,12OH
palaestina
Crepylinic
Crepis alpina
70
Arabidopsis
25
18:2 9c,12trp
α-Eleostearic
Mormordica
65
Soybean
17
18:3 9c,11t,13t
charantia
Calendic
Calendula
60
Arabidopsis
20
18:3 8t,10t,12c
officinalis
a
c, cis double bond; t, trans double bond; trp, triple bond; data from Murphy (67)
A further problem in obtaining high levels of desirable fatty acids is that in some crop species,
such as rapeseed, novel acyl groups are not always channeled to storage lipids. Instead, some of
the fatty acids may accumulate on membrane lipids. This ectopic accumulation of fatty acids in
membrane lipids can trigger a regulatory response, which results in their removal from
membranes and subsequent breakdown via the ß-oxidation and glyoxylate cycle pathways (60).
This is one reason why some transgenic plants are unable to accumulate high levels of desirable
fatty acids. It is also an important reminder of the complexity of metabolic regulation in plants
and the difficulties of manipulating this process via the insertion of one, or a few, transgenes
(67). Indeed, despite considerable advances over recent decades, a lack of fundamental scientific
knowledge about the mechanisms and regulation of acyl incorporation into TAGs is still
delaying the development of GM crops expressing high levels of useful fatty acids.
Although GM oil modification has mainly focused on the introduction of new fatty acids, it has
also been used to downregulate existing genes in order to decrease levels of unwanted fatty
acids. Most frequently this has involved technologies such as antisense or RNAi to suppress
genes encoding oleate and/or linoleate desaturases in order to reduce levels of oxidation-prone
-linolenate in seed oils used for industrial applications. These approaches involve the insertion
of various versions of the gene in question, such as a backwards (or antisense) copy or a partial
version of its corresponding RNA. In the latter case, the strategy is called RNA interference, or
RNAi. These inserted DNA or RNA segments interfere with expression of the target gene, either
partially or completely suppressing its activity. In one recent study, a combined antisensehairpin RNAi approach was used successfully to modify the seed oil of the model species
Arabidopsis thaliana, which is a relative of the oil crop, rapeseed (72).
Downregulation of oleate and/or linoleate desaturases will also normally result in an increase in
levels of oleate in seed oils. High-oleate oils are desirable for both edible and many industrial
applications and have been successfully developed in several major oil crops by non-transgenic
23
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
methods (60). However, several companies have also developed high-oleate, low-polyunsaturate
oils using various GM strategies. For example, high-oleate GM lines have been developed for
soybean (90% oleate), rapeseed (89% oleate), and cottonseed (78% oleate) (61).
The acyl composition of storage triacylglycerols is determined by complex interactions between
acyltransferases, acyl exchange and acyl modification enzymes. Therefore oil composition in
plants tends to behave as a ‗quantitative trait‘, i.e. a genetic character determined by several
(often many) genes (107). Unfortunately, for efforts to modify oil composition by genetic
engineering, quantitative traits are much more difficult, time-consuming and expensive to
manipulate than simple monogenic traits. This is a major factor behind the slow pace of progress
in producing GM oil crops compared to the sometimes optimistic projections from researchers in
the past (57, 58). However, recent progress in GM technology will doubtless facilitate the
manipulation of such complex traits during the coming decade.
The manipulation of many complex traits such as oil composition using GM methods will
require the insertion of several, and perhaps over a dozen, genes. With conventional insertion
technology and using similar or identical regulatory sequences (promoters, terminators etc) for
each transgene, there is a risk of interference between the various transgenes leading to gene
silencing (69). This has led to development of methods including co-transformation and use of
polycistronic transgenes to enable multiple gene insertion into plants. It is possible to transform
separate explants with different transgenes to produce a series of transgenic lines, each
expressing a different transgene. These transgenic lines are then crossed to create progeny
carrying multiple transgenes. Although this strategy has been used successfully, it is relatively
lengthy and labour intensive and the various transgenes will be dispersed in various genomic
locations where they may be subject to different position effects.
Co-transformation involves the simultaneous addition of several transgenes either as different TDNAs in a single Agrobacterium strain or in different strains that are inoculated together onto
explants. Co-introduced transgenes tend to integrate into the same chromosomal position, which
makes it much easier to detect and remove unwanted position effects at an early stage. Cotransformation has been used to create ‗stacked traits‘, such as crops expressing both herbicide
tolerance and insect resistance transgenes. It was also used to engineer the ‗golden rice‘ varieties
that accumulate ß-carotene in their grains. In future an increasing proportion of transgenic crops,
including oilseeds, is likely to contain ‗stacked traits‘ created via co-transformation (69).
Although GM technologies are always improving, it should be stressed once again that GM is
not the only option for the manipulation of plants to produce industrial oils. Broadly speaking,
there are three breeding approaches that can be used:
(i)
advanced non-GM breeding of existing oil crops including use of mutagenesis and
wide crosses for gene manipulation
(ii)
GM methods to bring new genes into existing crops (but with the realization that most
oil modifications will be complex traits involving the addition of several key genes,
not all of which may be identified at present)
(iii)
domestication of new oil crops using advanced molecular breeding methods such as
marker-assisted selection (67).
The choice of which approach to adopt will vary from case to case, but all of them have the
potential to deliver useful results for the production of renewable crop-derived industrial oils in
the future.
24
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Appendix 3. Global vegetable oil production and use
Annual global vegetable oil production (edible and non-edible) has increased over 6-fold from
25 MT in 1975 to 152 MT in 2011. In 2010, global oil production was split between food and
non-food (i.e. feed, fuel, and oleochemicals) use in the ratio 77.5 to 22.5. In the past decade
there has been a particularly pronounced increase in global biofuel use with biodiesel production
increasing from <0.1 MT in 1992 to 1 MT in 2000 and to 13 MT in 2009 (35). About 80% of
EU biofuel comes from vegetable oil-based biodiesel. Recent trends in non-food/industrial
vegetable oil consumption are shown in more detail in Table 6.
Table 6. Global consumption of nine major vegetable oils between 1997/98 and 2009/10
Note the steady rise in % consumption of non-food oil
Year
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Total, MT
Food
Non-food
73.8
66.4
7.4
78.6
70.7
7.9
82.9
74.4
8.5
88.8
78.7
10.1
91.2
80.3
10.9
95.3
83.1
12.2
100.8
87.0
13.8
108.2
91.5
16.7
115.0
94.4
20.6
119.7
96.0
23.7
125.8
99.1
26.7
130.3
101.9
28.4
138.4
107.3
31.1
Data adapted from Gunstone (35)
% non-food
10.0
10.0
10.2
11.4
11.9
12.8
13.7
15.4
17.9
19.8
21.2
21.8
22.5
The geographical distribution of vegetable oil consumption is shown in Table 7. The highest
ratio of non-food to food use is found in SE Asia (mainly due to the large palm oil-based
oleochemical industry in Malaysia), and in the EU (with an oleochemical industry partially
based on imported palm oil, plus expanding biodiesel production mainly sourced from local and
imported rapeseed oil). There is also significant non-food vegetable oil use in USA and Japan,
both of which have mature oleochemical industries, and growing use of biodiesel in countries
such as the USA, Brazil and Argentina, where it is mostly produced from soybean oil for either
for local use and/or for export (35).
Table 7. Consumption (MT) of the major vegetable oils in 2009/10 by country/region
Non-food
Region
Total Food
Total Palm Rape Soya Other
SE Asia
15.9
8.2
7.8
5.0
0.0
0.1
2.7
Middle
4.8
4.4
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
East
EU-27
23.9 13.0 10.9
2.1
6.8
1.1
0.9
China
26.8 24.4
2.4
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
India
15.8 14.9
0.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.3
USA
11.2
Other
40.0
Total
138.4 107.3 31.1 12.0
7.0
Data adapted from Gunstone (35)
25
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
As shown below in Table 8, global vegetable oil production is very much dominated by the ‗big
three‘ crops, namely oil palm, soybean, and rapeseed, which together account for over 80% of
total production. Although the EU produces most of its own rapeseed, almost two thirds (64.4%)
of global vegetable oil production comes from just two crops, oil palm and soybean, both of
which are almost completely sourced from outside the EU. This means that future oleochemical
supplies in the EU could largely depend on the import of seed and/or oil from other regions of
the world where attitudes to, and regulation of, GM technology may be significantly different
from norms that currently prevail in the EU.
Table 8. Global production of nine major vegetable oils in 2009/10
Production
Oil crop
%
MT
Palm mesocarp
45.86
32.8
Palm kernel
5.50
3.9
Soybean
38.76
27.7
Rapeseed
22.35
16.0
Sunflower
11.66
8.3
Peanut
4.67
3.3
Cottonseed
4.66
3.3
Coconut
3.62
2.6
Olive
2.92
2.1
Total
139.99
100.0
Data adapted from Gunstone (35)
Plant-derived fatty acids can be converted to methyl esters, alcohols, and amines from which
intermediate chemicals such as alcohol sulfates, alcohol ethoxylates, alcohol ether sulfates,
quaternary ammonium salts, monoacylglycerols, diacylglycerols, tailored TAGs, and glycoesters
may be produced. In 2010, global production of fatty acids was 8.0 MT of which 1.4 MT was in
the EU. Global production of detergent alcohols 3.4 MT of which 0.7 MT was in the EU (104).
Detergent alcohols are used mainly to produce surface-active compounds for personal care and
for cleaning processes. In the EU, other major oleochemical intermediates include fatty esters
(0.4 MT), lubricant esters (0.09 MT), and solvent replacers (0.015 MT). These chemicals are
used in paints, inks, lubricants, and production of polyols to make polyurethanes. Oleochemicals
are also used to produce many fine chemicals, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, coatings, textiles,
polymer, paper, fuel and rubber additives, biodegradable polymers, and offshore drilling muds.
Year
96/97
02/03
09/10
Table 9. Recent trends in global consumption (MT) of two major oil crops
Rapeseed
Palm
All plant oils
Total
Food
73.8
96.1
138.4
65.2
83.3
107.3
NonNonTotal Food
food
food
8.6
10.5
9.5
1.0
12.8
12.2 11.0
1.2
31.1
22.2 15.2
7.0
Data adapted from Gunstone (35)
Total
Food
17.6
27.6
45.3
14.1
22.0
33.3
Nonfood
3.5
5.6
12.0
The two most important oil crops for the EU oleochemical industry are oil palm and rapeseed.
Almost all the industrial oil palm consumed in the EU is imported from SE Asia while the bulk
of industrial rapeseed is grown locally. Recent trends in these two major crops are shown in
Table 9. The 7-fold increase in industrial rapeseed consumption is mainly due to subsidy-led
biofuel use in the EU where the proportion of rapeseed oil used for biodiesel increased from
10% in 2002/03 to 31% in 2009/10. In contrast, while there have been substantial increases in
palm oil use for biodiesel in SE Asia (much of which is then exported to the EU), the bulk of the
26
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
6.6 MT increase in industrial palm oil consumption has been due to expansion of oleochemical
production, especially in Malaysia. In contrast with Europe, most biofuel in the Americas
currently comes from bioethanol (mainly from maize in USA and sugar cane in Brazil), although
some modest production of biodiesel from soybean oil is beginning in the USA (mostly for local
markets) and in Brazil and Argentina (mostly for export) (35).
Over recent decades several EU-funded initiatives have explored the potential of new
oleochemical crops such as crambe and high-oil cultivars of oats (10). Similar research programs
have been carried out in individual EU countries and elsewhere, most notably in the USA and
Canada (50). Following the EC/USDA-funded EPOBIO project, it was agreed that it was
important to develop “a general purpose non-food GM oilseed crop as a platform to produce
novel fatty acids for industrial applications” (10). For data on current and possible future trends
for industrial oil crops see USDA (104, 105) and OECD/FAO (74) while Rabobank (79) reviews
the global grains and oilseeds sector.
27
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Appendix 4. Biofuels from vegetable oils
In 2000, global biofuel production was <13 MT, but this had almost quintupled to 60 MT by
2010 (68). Although the vast majority of global biofuel production comes from starch-derived
bioethanol, about 8 MT is sourced from vegetable oil-derived biodiesel, half of which is
produced in the EU. Major drivers for the increased production of biofuels include policies
aimed at developing alternative, renewable, and carbon-neutral energy sources (especially in the
EU), and to ensure national independence from perceived over-reliance on imported fossil fuels
(especially in the USA). During the 2000s, most advanced economies formulated national and/or
regional plans to develop and promote biofuels such as biodiesel and bioethanol. For example, in
the USA, a National Biofuels Action Plan (71) was drawn up by the Department of Energy and a
target of a ‗billion ton‘ annual production of biofuel feedstock was proposed (76).
Much biofuel production in the USA is focused on starch or cellulosic feedstocks and their
conversion to bioethanol or biohydrogen (38, 43, 80, 84). In contrast, the major source of
biofuels in the EU is vegetable oil-derived biodiesel. The EU adopted a biofuels directive in
2003 with the aim of replacing 2% of petrol and diesel for transport by biofuels by 2005, and
5.75% by 2010. The Commission also proposed reinforcing the legislative framework, with a
10% minimum for the market share of biofuels in 2020 (21), followed by further proposals in
2008 (23, 27). The Fuel Quality Directive 2009 also requires Member States to reduce life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions of transport fuels by 6% per cent by 2020, which has indirectly
affected biofuels markets. In the UK, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (RTFO) Order
mandates that 5% of total transport fuel should originate from renewable sources by 2013.
The production of biodiesel from vegetable oils in different regions of the world is shown in
Table 10. The EU total of 9.55 MT accounts for about half of global biodiesel production and
EU biodiesel production increased over ten-fold between 1998 and 2009 (29). As discussed
above, during the mid-2000s pressure to meet biofuel targets led to subsidies that also favoured
the increasing import of palm biodiesel in the EU (34). This led to large increases in palm oil
prices that impacted on food markets in Asia where palm oil is a major dietary component.
There are now signs of a slowdown in biodiesel production in the EU, partly due to a backlash
against the use of food crops, such as rapeseed and oil palm, for biofuel. Such concerns are
especially acute in developing countries where food insecurity caused by diversion of food crops
to non-food use is an increasingly serious issue (26, 31, 102).
Table 10. Global production (MT) of biodiesel since 2006
Year 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010*
Producer
Germany
2.55
2.93
2.67
2.50
2.73
France
0.74
0.87
1.82
2.00
2.20
Other EU
1.56
2.15
4.00
4.92
4.62
EU total
4.85
5.95
7.49
8.42
9.55
USA
1.13
1.70
2.69
1.80
2.10
Argentina
0.05
0.18
0.74
1.16
1.60
Brazil
0.06
0.36
1.03
1.40
2.00
Other countries
1.03
1.33
2.37
2.94
3.91
Global Total
7.12
9.52
14.32
15.72
19.16
*forecast; data from USDA (104)
The contrasting biofuel policies in the USA and EU are discussed by Tyner (101) who criticizes
the current US policy of selectively favouring bioethanol technologies. The policy of favouring
biofuels has become increasingly controversial within Europe since the food price rises of 200708 (73) and is much discussed by groups such as the European Biodiesel Board (www.ebb-
28
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
eu.org), European Oleochemicals & Allied Products Group (30), International Energy Agency
(41), and others (33). One result of the EU biofuel policy has been a huge increase in production
of rapeseed oil for non-food use, from 1.3 MT in 2002/03 to 6.7 MT in 2009/10 (50). The vast
majority of this industrial rapeseed oil is used for biodiesel production, mostly within the EU.
The greatly increased global production total of 60 Mt of biofuels in 2010, which was a factor in
driving up the prices of many staple food crops, was still only sufficient to cover a mere 2% of
the annual global transport fuel requirement (68). By 2008, international bodies such as FAO
and several NGOs were expressing significant concern about the policy of encouraging the use
of potential food crops such as rapeseed, oil palm, and maize to produce transport fuels (FAO,
2008). Specific concerns included the diversion of prime cropland away from food production,
increased conversion of rainforest and other pristine habitats to grow biofuel crops, and a
questioning of the overall energy balance (based on life-cycle analysis) involved in producing
high input-requiring biofuel crops (12, 14, 18, 34, 63, 64, 100, 106).
The capacity of biofuels to contribute to overall transportation fuels is analyzed below in Table
11. The take-home message is that crop-derived biofuels can only ever produce a tiny fraction of
transport fuel requirements. In view of the problems involved in using food-competitive crops as
biofuel feedstocks, there has been growing interest in developing novel crops or other biological
production platforms that can generate environmentally sustainable biofuels using terrestrial or
aquatic areas that cannot be used to grow food crops (111). There has also been interest in
breeding or engineering improved versions of existing oil crops (11, 19, 83, 85) and/or in
developing new plant-based feedstocks for biodiesel production (63, 69, 86). One example of a
new biodiesel oil crop is Jatropha curcas, whose oil-rich nuts can potentially yield 1.5-2.5 T/ha
biodiesel. Unfortunately, while Jatropha has been successfully grown on land that is unsuitable
for food crops, its oil yields and other performance traits have been disappointing and will
require considerably more R&D in the future (7).
Table 11. Potential usage of biofuels in the transportation sector
Consumption scenario
Global transport fuel, 2007
(>95% fossil derived)
Global transport fuel
consumption, 2020
estimate
EU transport fuel, 2007
Consumption
Arable land needed for
100% biofuel
substitution (million ha)
Arable land needed for
10% biofuel
substitution (million ha)
2.4 billion T
800-1200 Mha
80-120 Mha
3.4 billion T
1700 Mha*
170 Mha
0.5 billion T
167-250 Mha
(>100% arable area)
17-25 Mha
(14-21% arable area)
EU or USA
Biofuel
Arable land required
% present arable
% total global
policy target
production¶
(million ha)
area in region
arable area
EU transport
17 MT
5.5-8.7 Mha
4.5-7.2†
0.3-0.5
biofuel, 2010
EU transport
37 MT
12-19 Mha
10-16†
0.9-1.2
biofuel, 2020§
USA transport
4100 MT
1 Mha
570‡
72
biofuel, 2017
USA transport
9200 MT
1-2 Mha
570-1140‡
72-145
biofuel, 2025
* assuming 50% future increase in biofuel yields; ¶ production figures in MT are minimal values based on
2007 data – but according to industry estimates, fuel consumption may increase >50% by 2030 with a
commensurate increase in land required for biofuels; † total EU arable area is 120 Mha; ‡ total USA
arable area is 175 Mha; § according to Woods (111), achieving the 2020 biofuels target would require
c.600 Mha land using conventional technologies and c.250 Mha with ‗next generation‘ technologies.
Estimates are based on a global arable land area of 1380 Mha. Data from Murphy (63).
29
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
In several cases, GM approaches are being used to develop new varieties of existing oil crops
engineered for improved biofuel production (44, 51, 91, 98, 103). In 2011, the first GM crop
variety engineered for improved biofuel characteristics was approved for commercial use in the
USA. This GM maize variety, called Enogen™, has a modified α-amylase gene that enhances
dry grind ethanol production in a way that can be easily integrated into the existing infrastructure
of ethanol production facilities, resulting in significant cost savings and a much reduced
environmental footprint (103). In other cases, the possibility of manipulating vegetable oil crops
to enhance their utility for biodiesel production is being investigated (68).
For example, palm oil-derived biodiesel has a relatively high saturated fatty acid content, which
can limit its use (or require blending with other oils) as a fuel under cool conditions, such as
Northern Hemisphere winters. The high oleate oil palm varieties currently under development
would address this problem (88). It may also be possible to engineer vegetable oils with high C8
compositions that could be converted to high-octane gasoline for applications where diesel fuels
are not suitable. As shown in Table 2, the non-crop oilseed plant, Cuphea avigera, already
produces oil containing 94% C8 acyl residues. Also, GM rapeseed has been produced with 60%
C12, instead of 90% C18 as in the conventional crop (107). Therefore if there is a commercial
requirement for C8 oils, GM technology could in principle to supply such oils.
In other cases, new non-crop sources of biofuels are being investigated, one of the most
promising of which is microalgae (6, 40, 90, 97, 108). Although microalgae are single-celled
aquatic eukaryotes capable of photosynthesis, the term as used popularly can sometimes include
non-algal photosynthetic prokaryotes such as cyanobacteria. Some species of microalgae
accumulate as much as 50% of their mass as storage lipids similar to those found in oil crops.
Some algae also grow well in brackish or salty water and can therefore be cultivated without
using scarce cropland. Microalgae can grow much faster than crops and, providing high-oil
varieties can be cultured on a sufficiently large scale, they could potentially generate huge
amounts of biodiesel.
It is estimated that if microalgae could be grown on a large scale without yield losses, they could
produce 10-50 times more biodiesel per hectare than existing crops such as rapeseed or oil palm.
If microalgae were grown in shallow ponds over an area of 0.2 Mha, one billion tonnes of
biodiesel could be produced each year. Therefore an area of 3.8 Mha could potentially generate
sufficient biodiesel to replace all petroleum-based transport fuels currently used in the USA.
This is only 2% of the current arable acreage in the USA and a mere 0.4% of the total land area
of the country (63, 68). Although they will require large land areas for economic cultivation,
many microalgae grow well in sunny, warm habitats such as shallow ponds. It may therefore be
possible to set up ponds as microalgal bioreactors in sunny but arid and little-used areas such as
the Colorado Desert of the western USA.
Many technical challenges will have to be overcome before microalgae can provide a realistic
alternative to fossil fuels. Particular problems are maintaining oil yields as cultures are scaled up
and contamination by other algae and pathogens. As well as improved bioreactor design, several
GM and mutagenesis approaches are being used to improve oil yields. One strategy is to transfer
the genes responsible for oil secretion from slow-growing species such as Botryococcus braunii
to more productive microalgae such as Chlamydomonas spp. If microalgae can be engineered to
secrete oil, this will collect on the surface and could be continuously harvested rather than the
current less efficient method of periodically collecting algal cells and extracting the oil from
them. Further into the future, microalgae and bacteria may be harnessed to produce gaseous
fuels, such as biogas and biohydrogen. For example, in anaerobic conditions Chlamydomonas
can produce hydrogen in the light and this might be enhanced by manipulation of photosystem II
activity. Microalgal biofuel production has considerable promise but will probably take several
decades to become economically feasible (63, 68). However, it is likely that future commercial
oil production from microalgae will involve some form of GM technology.
30
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Appendix 5. Crop-derived, lipid-based biopolymers and waxes
As an alternative to modifying TAG-based storage lipids in oil crops, fatty acid biosynthetic
pathways can be diverted to the production of other useful carbon-based compounds. For
example, there is great interest in using GM crops for large-scale production of biodegradable
polymers such as polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). Such biopolymers could potentially substitute
for conventional plastics that are currently derived from non-renewable petroleum feedstocks (2,
55, 77). Almost all conventional plastics are currently made from petroleum-derived chemicals
such as adipic acid and vinyl chloride but the manufacturing processes are relatively energy
intensive and frequently produce undesirable byproducts that can be costly and difficult to
dispose of. Finally, many petroleum-based polymer products are difficult to recycle and take
decades before they break down in landfill sites. An attractive alternative to conventional
plastics is renewable, biodegradable biopolymers that are less energy-intensive to manufacture.
Some soil bacteria, such as Ralstonia eutrophus or Alcaligenes latus, can accumulate up to 80%
of their mass as non-toxic biodegradable PHA polymers. The PHAs accumulate as tiny semisolid granules in bacterial cells. The PHAs are made up of β-hydroxyalkanoate subunits that are
synthesized from acetyl-CoA via a relatively short pathway involving as few as three enzymes
for the most common PHA, polyhydroxybutyrate (96). Currently, PHAs are made industrially
via a bioreactor process but cost as much as ten-fold more to produce than conventional plastics.
Following the development of GM technologies in the 1980s, it was realized that the three
bacterial genes could also be transferred into crops, which would then hopefully accumulate
PHAs on an agricultural scale. Plant-derived PHAs had the prospect of being much cheaper and
capable of production on a much larger scale that might make them competitive with petroleumderived plastics. Providing the PHAs accumulate in plastids, it was possible to obtain modest
yields of polymers in leaves or seeds (39, 94). GM oil crops such as rapeseed or oil palm (61)
have been most the common production platforms for biopolymers but there has been a recent
report of PHA accumulation in the biomass crop, switchgrass or Panicum virgatum (95).
A major and as yet unresolved technical hurdle is how to extract biopolymer granules from plant
tissues in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Over recent years, there have been several
patent filings for PHA extraction from plants based on non-halogenated solvent extraction at
high-temperature, plus procedures that allow simultaneous extraction of PHAs and oils from
oilseed crops using differential solvent extraction (55). However, none of these methods are
particularly environmentally friendly, which may be a major issue for a product, such as a
biopolymer, whose major raison d‘être is based on its environmental credentials. To date, none
of these methods have been published for commercial-scale extraction from plants and further
progress on PHAs may be delayed until this challenge can be overcome (67).
Wax esters are rarely found in plant oils, but the desert shrub, jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis) can
accumulate as much as 95% of its seed oil as a long chain C20:1/C22:1 wax. This liquid wax
performs especially well in high-temperature and high-pressure applications such as jet engine
lubricants and as hydraulic fluids. Jojoba wax is also highly prized in the cosmetics industry.
Because jojoba plants are difficult to cultivate, grow slowly, and have low oil yields, GM
methods have been used to engineer wax accumulation in at least one mainstream oilseed crop.
Co-expression of genes encoding a jojoba acyl-CoA reductase and β-ketoacyl-CoA synthase
from Lunaria annua in the model plant Arabidopsis resulted in seed oils with wax levels of up to
70% w/w (47). Following this success, expression of jojoba acyl-CoA reductase in high-erucic
rapeseed resulted in the synthesis of a small amount of wax ester (53). However, wax ester
yields in this GM rapeseed were insufficient for commercial production and there have been no
subsequent reports of GM wax ester crops. It is possible that part of the reason for the failure by
Monsanto (the owner of the technology) to pursue this project after the early 2000s was the
relatively small market for specialty jojoba-like oils in comparison with the relatively high R&D
and regulatory costs required to bring the product to market.
31
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
Appendix 6. Socioeconomic dimensions of GM industrial oil crops
From its beginning in the 1970s, there was opposition to all forms of GM technology, including
the use of microbial, animal, and plant systems. During the 1990s, however, the objections
became focused more on GM crops (and to a lesser extent on animals). In contrast, GM
microorganisms are now widely used in manufacture of a dozens of recombinant pharmaceutical
products including insulin, vaccines, and specialized therapeutic proteins (69). Initially, the
opposition to GMOs was based mainly on the principle that genes should not be inserted into
any higher organisms, either on ethical grounds or due to the perceived risks that potentially
dangerous new life forms might be created. However, once 1st generation GM crops were
released on a large scale in the mid-late 1990s, much of the opposition was as much concerned
with the provenance of the technology as its perceived risks in regard to environmental impacts
or food safety.
In particular, campaign groups stressed that almost all transgenic crop varieties were patented
and owned by a few large multinational companies. This led to concerns that global food
supplies might in the future be controlled by a few large companies for their own interests (62).
Moreover, consumers in Europe saw little or no benefit from 1st-generation GM crops developed
mainly in the USA with modified input traits designed to facilitate crop management rather than
to produce better or cheaper food. Public disquiet was exacerbated in 1999 by claims that
transgenic potatoes might have adverse effects on laboratory rats. Although subsequent research
has shown that many original claims about the dangers of GM technology were unjustified,
public disquiet remains and since 1999 most GM crop products have been effectively excluded
from EU markets. This was partially due to pressure from anti-GM campaigning groups, but
their success was facilitated by consumer uncertainty about the risk/benefit equation of GM
technology and concerns about its provenance. This has framed a political context that can make
it difficult for governments to openly endorse GM crop products, whatever the scientific facts.
Table 12. Private sector firms and R&D expenditures by type of activity in 2006
Market sector
‗Big six‘ agrochemical/
agbiotech companies*
Other agrochemical
companies
Other seed companies
Number of Agricultural R&D,
companies $ billion
6
2.03 + 1.57
(chemicals + seed/biotech)
122
0.62
% total R&D
spending
66
11
82
0.63
12
45
0.17
3
Other agbiotech
companies
Fertilizer companies
No data
0.45
8
Total
255
5.47
100
*The ‗Big six‘ are BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, Dupont, Dow and
Monsanto; data adapted from Piesse & Thirtle (78)
Ownership of GM technology was consolidated in the 1990s, when a spate of acquisitions and
mergers resulted in most small agbiotech startup companies being taken over by a few large
multinational agrochemical companies. For example Calgene and many other biotech and seed
companies were acquired by Monsanto while other large agrochemical multinationals, such as
Dow Chemical, DuPont, BASF, and Syngenta, acquired many remaining smaller independent
agbiotech companies. As shown above in Table 12, by 2006 the ‗big six‘ companies controlled
32
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
66% of R&D spending on crop improvement. This concentration is even more marked in
existing commercial GM crop varieties, where > 90% of seed sales come from Monsanto. By the
2010s, only a few small agbiotech companies remained and these were mostly either service
providers or firms working in small high-risk niche areas such as biopharming where the
multinationals were less active.
One of the challenges for the future acceptability of GM crops will be to broaden their
provenance beyond a few multinational companies and to involve the public sector in GMrelated R&D to a much greater extent than at present (62, 89). Ironically, one of the barriers to
such a broadening of the R&D and ownership base of GM crops may be the complex, lengthy,
expensive, and unpredictable nature of the current mechanisms for regulation of GM crops in the
EU (15, 82). These make it more difficult for smaller companies and public sector researchers to
develop improved form of GM technology in Europe compared to many other parts of the world.
Many of those objecting to GM technology say that it is unnecessary and has not been used to
address key crop traits such as yield, drought or salinity. Indeed, as discussed above, after two
decades of commercial use >99.5% of GM technology involves just two agronomic traits in only
four crops. While it is true that the impact of GM technology has been very significant in the
four crops where it has been widely applied, its impact has been relatively modest in terms of the
bigger picture of global agriculture and the dozens of agronomic traits involved in crop
performance. This also applies to the manipulation of crop composition, e.g. to produce
industrial oils.
However, GM technology is still developing and new tools such as genomics are just beginning
to have a significant impact. Therefore GM technology may be used in much wider applications
in the next few decades, as discussed in Section 5. Even today, the overall socio-economic
context of GM crops may be gradually changing away from the initial strong rejectionism of the
late 1990s towards a more nuanced perspective that takes into account changes in the nature and
provenance of the technology (22). To quote from a recent EU-wide survey of attitudes to GM
foods reported by Gaskell et al (32):
―
The latest Eurobarometer survey … conducted in February 2010, points to a new era in the
relations between science and society. While entrenched views about GM food are still evident,
the crisis of confidence in technology and regulation that characterised the 1990s … is no
longer the dominant perspective. In 2010 we see a greater focus on technologies themselves: are
they safe? Are they useful? And are there 'technolite' alternatives with more acceptable ethicalmoral implications? Europeans are also increasingly concerned about energy and
sustainability. There is no rejection of the impetus towards innovation: Europeans are in favour
of appropriate regulation to balance the market, and wish to be involved in decisions about new
technologies when social values are at stake.‖
33
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
References
1a. Aviatime.com (2011) Finnair in the forefront of flying on biofuel, http://www.aviatime.com/finnairin-the-forefront-of-flying-on-biofuel.html
1b. Backus GBC et al (2008) EU policy on GMOs; a quick scan of the economic consequences, Report
2008-070, LEI Wageningen University Research Centre, The Hague
1c. Bai et al (2011) Rapid detection of eight vegetable oils on optical thin-film biosensor chips, Food
Control 22 1624-1628
1.
Barros E, Lezar S, Anttonen MJ, van Dijk JP, Rohlig RM, Kok EJ, Engel KH (2010) Comparison of
two GM maize varieties with a near-isogenic non-GM variety using transcriptomics, proteomics and
metabolomics, Plant Biotechnology Journal 8, 436–451
2.
van Beilen JB, Poirier Y (2007) Prospects for biopolymer production in plants. Advances in
Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology 107,133-151
3.
Biermann U, Bornscheuer U, Meier MAR, Metzger JO, Schäfer HJ (2011) Oils and Fats as
Renewable Raw Materials in Chemistry. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 50, 3854 -3871
4.
Bogani P, Minunni M, Spiriti MM, Zavaglia M, Tombelli S, Buiatti M, Mascini M (2009)
Transgenes monitoring in an industrial soybean processing chain by DNA-based conventional
approaches and biosensors. Food Chem 113, 658-664
5.
Borg K (1975) Physiopathological effects of rapeseed oil: a review. Acta Med Scand Suppl 585, 5-13
6.
Briggs M (2004) Widescale biodiesel production from algae, University of New Hampshire,
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
7.
Brittaine R, Lutaladio N (2010) Jatropha: a smallholder bioenergy crop. The potential for pro-poor
development, Integrated Crop Management 8-2010
8.
Cahoon EB, Kinney AJ (2005) Production of vegetable oils with novel properties: using genomic
tools to probe and manipulate fatty acid metabolism. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 107, 239-243
9.
Cahoon EB, Shockey JM, Dietrich CR, Gidda SK, Mullen RT, Dyer JM (2007) Engineering oilseeds
for sustainable production of industrial and nutritional feedstocks: solving bottlenecks in fatty acid
flux. Current Biology 10, 236-244
10. Carlsson AS, Clayton D, Salentijn E, Toonen M (2007) Oil crop platforms for industrial uses,
Outputs from the EPOBIO project, Cpl Press, http://epobio.net/pdfs/0704OilCropsReport.pdf
11. Chhetri AB, Tango MS, Budge SM, Watts KC, Islam MR (2008) Non-Edible Plant Oils as New
Sources for Biodiesel Production, Int J Mol Sci 9, 169-180
12. Christian Aid (2009) Growing pains: the possibilities and problems of biofuels,
www.christianaid.org.uk
13. Costa J, Mafra I, Amaral JS, Oliveira MBPP (2008) Transgenes monitoring in an industrial soybean
oil processing by conventional and real-time polymerase chain reaction, In 9º Encontro de Química
dos Alimentos, Angra do Heroísmo, http://bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt/handle/10198/5109
13a. Costa J, Mafra I, Amaral JS, Oliveira MBPP (2010a) Monitoring genetically modified soybean along
the industrial soybean oil extraction and refining processes by polymerase chain reaction techniques,
Food Research International 43, 301–306
13b. Costa J, Mafra I, Amaral JS, Oliveira MBPP (2010b) Detection of genetically modified soybean
DNA in refined vegetable oils, Eur Food Res Technol 230, 915–923
34
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
14. Davis SC, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, DeLucia EH (2009) Life-cycle analysis and the ecology of
biofuels, Trends in Plant Science 14, 140-146
15. Davison J (2010) GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations. Plant Science 178, 94–98
16. Davison J, Bertheau Y (2007) EU regulations on the traceability and detection of GMOs: difficulties
in interpretation, implementation and compliance, CAB Review: Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat.
Resources 2, 1–14
17. Davison J, Bertheau Y (2008) The theory and the practice of European traceability regulations for
GM food and feed, Cereal Foods World 53, 186–196
18. Doornbosch R, Steenblik R (2007) Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease? 20th meeting of the
OECD round table on sustainable development, Paris, September 2007,
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/46/39348696.pdf
18a. Doveri S, Lee D (2007) Development of sensitive crop-specific polymerase chain reaction assays
using 5S DNA: Applications in food traceability, J. Agric. Food Chem. 55, 4640-4644
19. Durrett TP, Benning C, Ohlrogge J (2008) Plant triacylglycerols as feedstocks for the production of
biofuels, Plant Journal 54, 593-607
20. Dyer JM, Mullen RT (2008) Engineering plant oils as high-value industrial feedstocks for
biorefining: the need for underpinning cell biology research, Physiol Plantarum 132: 11–22
21. EC (2003) Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on
the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, May 2003
22. EC (2011) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on socioeconomic implications of GMO cultivation on the basis of Member States‘ contributions, as
requested by the Conclusions of the Environment Council of December 2008, SANCO/10715/2011
(POOL/E1/2011/10715/10715SWP-EN.doc)
23. EC (2008): Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion
of the use of energy from renewable sources, COM (2008) 19 final, January 2008
23a. EFSA (2010b) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants, Panel
on Genetically Modified Organisms, EFSA Journal 2010-8, 1879
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/1879.pdf
23b. EFSA (2010b) Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants, Panel
on Genetically Modified Organisms, EFSA Journal 2011-9, 2150
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2150.pdf
24. Ehran SZ (2005) Industrial uses of vegetable oils, AOCS Press, Urbana
25. Ehran SZ, Adhvaryu A (2005) Non-food lipids, In Murphy DJ, ed, Plant Lipids: biology, utilisation
and manipulation, Blackwell, Oxford
26. Ericksen P, Thornton P, Notenbaert A, Cramer L, Jones P, Herrero M (2011) Mapping hotspots of
climate change and food insecurity in the global tropics. CCAFS Report no. 5, CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Copenhagen,
www.ccafs.cgiar.org
27. EurActive (2008) EU agrees 10% 'green fuel' target in renewables deal, Available at:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/eu-agrees-10-green-fuel-target-renewables-deal/article-177812
28. EuropaBio (2011) Pocket guide to GM crops and policies, EuropaBio, Brussels, www.europabio.org
35
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
29. European Biodiesel Board (2009) The EU biodiesel industry, http://www.ebb-eu.org/stats.php
30. European Oleochemicals & Allied Products Group (2006) Challenges and potential of biomass &
biofuels for the European Oleochemical Industry, Public Hearing 060601
31. FAO (2008) Biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities, FAO, Rome Italy
32.
Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y et al (2010) Europeans and
biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change? A report to the European Commission Directorate-General
for Research, EUR 24537 EN, European Commission Publications Office, Brussels
33. Gilbertson T, Holland N, Semino S, Smith K (2007) Paving the way for Agrofuels, EU policy,
sustainability criteria, and climate calculations, 25 September 2007,
http://www.tni.org/detail_pub.phtml?&know_id=202
34. de Gorter (2010) Why the EU biodiesel import tariff on US ‗splash and dash‘ exports will make no
difference, Biofuels 1:247-250
34a. Gryson N, Messens K, Dewettinck K (2004) Influence of different oil-refining parameters and
sampling size on the detection of genetically modified DNA in soybean oil, Journal American Oil
Chemists Society 81, 231-234
34b. Gryson N, Ronsse F, Messens K, De Loose M, Verleyen T, Dewettinck K (2002) Detection of DNA
during the refining of soybean oil, Journal American Oil Chemists Society 79, 171-174
35. Gunstone F (2011) Non-food markets, Lipid Library website,
http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/market/nonfood.htm
36. Gunstone, FD, Harwood JL (2007) Occurrence and characterization of oils and fats, in, Gunstone, FD,
Harwood JL, Dijkstra AJ (eds.), The Lipid Handbook, 3rd Ed, pp 37-141, Taylor & Francis, London
36a. Hilbeck A, Meier M, Römbke J, Jänsch S, Teichmann H, Tappeser B (2011) Environmental risk
assessment of genetically modified plants - concepts and controversies. Environmental Sciences
Europe 23:13
37. Hill K (2000) Fats and oils as oleochemical raw materials. Pure Appl Chem 72, 1255–1264
38. Hoffer T (2010) Farewell to Fossil Fuels? Science 329, 1292-1295
39. Houmiel KL, Slater S, Broyles D, Casagrande L, Colburn S, Gonzalez K et al. (1999) Poly(βhydroxybutyrate) production in oilseed leukoplasts of Brassica napus. Planta 209, 547–550
40. Hu Q, Sommerfeld M, Jarvis E, Ghirardi M, Posewitz M, Seibert M et al (2008) Microalgal
triacylglycerols as feedstocks for biofuel production: perspectives and advances, Plant Journal 54,
621-639
41. International Energy Agency (2009) Key World Energy Statistics, Paris, www.iea.org
42. James C (2010) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2010. ISAAA Brief No. 42,
ISAAA, Ithaca, NY, http://www.isaaa.org
42a. Jinxia A, Qingzhang L, Xuejun G, Yanbo, Y Lu L, Minghui Z (2011) A multiplex nested PCR assay
for the simultaneous detection of genetically modified soybean, maize and rice in highly processed
products, Food Control 22, 1617-1623
43. Kausch A, Hague J, Oliver M, Li Y, Daniell H, Mascia P et al (2010) Transgenic perennial biofuel
feedstocks and strategies for bioconfinement. Biofuels 1, 163-176
36
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
44. Knothe G (2008) ―
Designer‖ biodiesel: optimizing fatty ester composition to improve fuel
properties. Energy and Fuels 22, 1358-1364
45. Kogel KH, Voll LM, Schäfer P, Jansen C, Wu Y, Langen G et al (2010) Transcriptome and
metabolome profiling of field-grown transgenic barley lack induced differences but show cultivarspecific variances. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107, 6198-6203
46. Kroon JT, Wei W, Simon WJ, Slabas AR (2006) Identification and functional expression of a type 2
acyl-CoA:diacylglycerol acyltransferase (DGAT2) in developing castor bean seeds which has high
homology to the major triglyceride biosynthetic enzyme of fungi and animals. Phytochemistry 67,
2541–2549
47. Lardizabal KD, Metz JG, Sakamoto T, Hutton WC, Pollard MR, Lassner MW (2000) Purification of
a jojoba embryo wax synthase, cloning of its cDNA, and production of high levels of wax in seeds of
transgenic Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 122, 645-655
48. Li Z, Xing A, Moon BP, McCardell RP, Mills K, Falco SC (2009) Site-specific integration of
transgenes in soybean via recombinase-mediated DNA cassette exchange. Plant Physiol 151, 10871095
49. Li Z, Moon BP, Xing A, Liu ZB, McCardell RP, Damude HG et al (2010) Stacking multiple
transgenes at a selected genomic site via repeated recombinase-mediated DNA cassette exchanges.
Plant Physiol 154, 622-631
49a. Lopez GP, Laan T (2008) Biofuels – at what cost? Global Studies Initiative, Geneva, ISBN 978-1894784-22-1
50. Lu C et al (2010) New frontiers in oilseed biotechnology: meeting the global demand for vegetable
oils for food, feed, biofuel, and industrial applications, Curr Opinion Biotechnol 22, 252-259
51. Lynd LR, Laser MS, Bransby D, Dale BE, Davison B, Hamilton R et al (2008) How biotech can
transform biofuels, Nature Biotechnology 26, 169-173
52. Masuda T, Goldsmith PD (2009) World soybean production: area harvested, yield, and long-term
projections, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 12, 143-162
53. Metz JG, Pollard MR, Anderson L, Hayes TR, Lassner MW (2000) Purification of a jojoba embryo
fatty acyl-Coenzyme A reductase and expression of its cDNA in high erucic acid rapeseed. Plant
Physiology 122, 635-644
54. McKeon TA (2005) Genetic Modification of Seed Oils for Industrial Applications, In: Industrial
Uses of Vegetable Oils, Erhan SZ, ed, AOCS Press, Urbana
55. Mooney BP (2009) The second green revolution? Production of plant-based biodegradable plastics.
Biochemical Journal 418, 219-232
56. Moschini G (2006) Pharmaceutical and industrial traits in genetically modified crops: coexistence
with conventional agriculture. American J Agric Economics 88, 1184–92
57. Murphy DJ (1991) Designer oilseed crops. Genetic engineering of new oilseed crops for edible and
non- edible applications. Agro-Industry Hi-Tech 5, 5–10
58. Murphy DJ (1992) Modifying oilseed crops for non-edible products. Trends in Biotechnol 10, 84–87.
59. Murphy DJ (1994) Designer Oil Crops, Murphy DJ, ed, VCH Press, Weinheim
60. Murphy DJ (2006) Molecular breeding strategies for the modification of lipid composition, In Vitro
Cellular and Developmental Biology-Plant 42, 89-99
37
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
61. Murphy DJ (2007a) Future prospects for oil palm in the 21st century: Biological and related
challenges, European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 109, 296-306
62. Murphy DJ (2007b) Plant Breeding and Biotechnology: Societal Context and the Future of
Agriculture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
63. Murphy DJ (2008) Future prospects for Biofuels, Chemistry Today 26, 44-48
64. Murphy DJ (2009a) Global oil yields: have we got it serious wrong? Inform 20, 499-500
65. Murphy DJ (2009b) Industrial oil crops, when will they finally deliver on their promise? Inform 20,
749-751
66. Murphy DJ (2009c) Oil palm: future prospects for yield and quality improvements, Lipid Technology
21, 257-260
67. Murphy DJ (2010) Manipulation of oil crops for industrial applications, In: Singh BP, ed, Industrial
Crops and Uses, CABI Press, UK, pp 183-206,
http://bookshop.cabi.org/default.aspx?site=191&page=2633&pid=2210
68. Murphy DJ (2011a) Oil crops: a potential source of biofuel, in: Technological Innovations in Major
World Oil Crops, Volume 2: Perspectives, Springer, Berlin, in press
69. Murphy DJ (2011b) Plants, Biotechnology and Agriculture, CABI Press, Wallingford
http://bookshop.cabi.org/?page=2633&pid=2263&site=191
70. Napier JA (2007) The production of unusual fatty acids in transgenic plants. Annual Review of Plant
Biology 58, 295-319
71. National Biofuels Action Plan (2007) US Department of Energy,
http://www.biofuelspostureplan.govtools.us/documents/NationalBiofuelsActionPlanWorkshopSumm
aryReportFinal-5-30-07.pdf
72. Nguyen T, Shanklin J (2009) Altering Arabidopsis Oilseed Composition by a Combined AntisenseHairpin RNAi Gene Suppression Approach, Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 86, 41-49
73. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2011) Biofuels: ethical issues, Nuffield Press, Abingdon
74. OECD/FAO (2011) Oilseeds and oilseed products, In: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020,
pp 107- 118 FAO, Rome
75. Partridge M, Murphy DJ (2004) Detection of genetically modified soya in a range of organic and
health food products. Implications for the accurate labelling of foodstuffs derived from potential GM
crops. British Food Journal 106, 166-180
76. Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as
Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton
Annual Supply. Department of Energy/GO-102005-2135, ORNL, 2005,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf
77. Philip S, Keshavarz T, Roy I (2007) Polyhydroxyalkanoates: biodegradable polymers with a range of
applications. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 82, 233–247
78. Piesse J, Thirtle C (2010) Agricultural R&D, technology and productivity, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 365, 3035-3047
79. Rabobank (2007) World map grains & oilseeds, Utrecht
80. Ragauskas AJ, Williams CK, Davison BH, Britovsek G, Cairney J, Eckert CA et al (2006) The path
38
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311, 484
81. Ramessar K, Capell T, Twyman RM, Christou P (2010) Going to ridiculous lengths—European
coexistence regulations for GM crops, Nature Biotechnology 28, 133-136
82. Ramessar K, Capell T, Twyman RM, Quemada H, Christou P (2008) Trace and traceability—a call
for regulatory harmony, Nature Biotechnology 26, 975–978
83. Razon LF (2009) Alternative crops for biodiesel feedstock. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in
Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 4, No. 056, 1-15
84. Regalbuto JR (2009) Cellulosic Biofuels—Got Gasoline? Science 325, 822-824
85. Rosillo-Calle F, Pelkmans L, Walter A (2009) A global overview of vegetable oils with reference to
biodiesel, A Report for the IEA Bioenergy, Task 40, Imperial College, London
86. Ruane J, Sonnino A, Agostini (2010) Bioenergy and the potential contribution of agricultural
biotechnologies in developing countries, Biomass and Bioenergy 34, 1427-1439
87. Rupilius W, Ahmad S (2008) The Changing World of Oleochemicals. Palm Oil Devel 44, 15-28
88. Sambanthamurthi R, Siti Nor Akmar A, Ahmad Parveez GK (2002) Genetic manipulation of the oil
palm – challenges and prospects. The Planter 78, 547-562
89. Sappington TW, Ostlie KR, DiFonzo C, Hibbard BE, Krupke CH, Porter P (2010) Conducting
public-sector research on commercialized transgenic seed. In search of a paradigm that works. GM
Crops 1, 1-4
90. Schenk MP, Thomas-Hall SR, Stephens E, Marx UE, Mussgnug JH, Posten C, et al. (2008) Second
generation biofuels: high-efficiency microalgae for biodiesel production. BioEnergy Research 1, 2043
91. Sexton S, Zilberman D, Rajagopal D, Hochman G (2009) The Role of Biotechnology in a
Sustainable Biofuel Future, AgBioForum 12, 130-140
92. Shockey JM, Gidda SK, Chapital DC, Kuan JC, Dhanoa PK et al (2006) Tung tree DGAT1 and
DGAT2 have nonredundant functions in triacylglycerol biosynthesis and are localized to different
subdomains of the endoplasmic reticulum. Plant Cell 18, 2294–2313
93. Siti Nor Akmar A, Sambanthamurthi R, Ahmad Parveez GK (2001) Genetic modification of oil palm
for producing novel oils. Proceedings of the PIPOC 2001 International Palm Oil Congress, pp 18-30,
MPOB, Kuala Lumpur
94. Snell KD, Peoples OP (2002) Polyhydroxyalkanoate polymers and their production in transgenic
plants, Metabolic Engineering 4, 29-40
95. Somleva MN, Snell KD, Beaulieu JJ, Peoples OP, Garrison BR, Patterson NA (2008) Production of
polyhydroxybutyrate in switchgrass, a value-added co-product in an important lignocellulosic
biomass crop. Plant Biotechnology Journal 6, 663–678
96. Steinbüchel A, Füchtenbusch B (1998) Bacterial and other biological systems for polyester
production. Trends in Biotechnology 16, 419–427
97. Stephens E, Ross IL, Mussgnug JH, Wagner LD, Borowitzka MA, Posten C et al (2010) Future
prospects of microalgal biofuel production systems, Trends in Plant Science 15, 554-564
98. Sticklen MB (2006) Plant genetic engineering to improve biomass characteristics for biofuels, Curr
Opinion Biotechnol 17, 315-319
39
The status of industrial vegetable oils from genetically modified plants
98a. SVO (2011) Straight vegetable oil, the carbon neutral fuel, www.vegoilmotoring.com
99. Thelen JJ, Ohlrogge JB (2002) Metabolic Engineering of Fatty Acid Biosynthesis in Plants,
Metabolic Engineering 4, 12-21
100. Tilman D Socolow R, Foley JA, Hill J, Larson E, Lynd L et al (2009) Beneficial biofuels – the food,
energy, and environment trilemma, Science 325, 270-271
101. Tyner WE (2010) Comparison of the US and EU approaches to stimulating biofuels, Biofuels 1, 1921
102. UK Foresight (2011) The Future of Food and Farming, Final Project Report, Government Office for
Science, London, www.bis.gov.uk/foresight
103. Urbanchuk JM, Kowalski DJ, Dale B Kim S (2009) Corn Amylase: Improving the Efficiency and
Environmental Footprint of Corn to Ethanol through Plant Biotechnology. AgBioForum 12, 149-154
104. USDA (2010) Oilseeds: World markets and trade,
http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/oilseeds.pdf
105. USDA (2011) USDA Issues Oil Crops Outlook, Oil Mill Gazetteer 116, 2-15,
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/OCS/OCS-05-12-2011.pdf
106. de Vries SC, van der Ven GWJ, Ittersum MK, Giller KE (2010) Resource use efficiency and
environmental performance of nine major biofuel crops, processed by first-generation conversion
techniques, Biomass and Bioenergy 34, 588-601
107. Voelker TA, Hayes TR, Cranmer AM, Turner JC, Davies HM (1996) Genetic engineering of a
quantitative trait: metabolic and genetic parameters influencing the accumulation of laurate in
rapeseed. Plant Journal 9, 229–241
108. Waltz E (2009) Biotech‘s green gold? Nature Biotechnology 27, 15-18
109. Weckwerth W (2011) Green systems biology—From single genomes, proteomes and metabolomes
to ecosystems research and biotechnology, Journal of Proteomics Epub ahead of print
110. Wolt JD, Keese P, Raybould A, Fitzpatrick JW, Burachik M, Gray A, Olin SS, Schiemann J, Sears
M, Wu F (2009) Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified
plants. Transgenic Research 19:425-436
111. Woods J (2007) Sustainable Biofuel Systems: opportunities and threats, International Biofuels
Opportunities, Royal Society, London, http://royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=4170
Figure citations
Front cover: Oilseed rape field, England; DNA molecule, courtesy of National Institute of
General Medical Sciences, USA.
Fig 1: Lipid structures, A. courtesy of JS Carter, University of Cincinnati; B. courtesy of M
Blaber, Florida State University.
Fig 2: Fatty acid pathway, Murphy laboratory.
Fig 3: Seed structures, A. courtesy of MJ Farabee, Maricopa College, Phoenix; B. oil palm,
courtesy of Jitu Saririch, Malaysia.
Fig 4: Oil bodies, Murphy laboratory.
Fig 5: Oleochemical flowchart, courtesy of Bernardini Srl, Italy; mechanical extraction, courtesy
of Fediol, Brazil.
40